Friday, December 23, 2011

Blitzchess & Chaos: Sherlock Holmes A Game Of Shadows

Please see Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows before you read this post because I really don't won't to ruin the film for you; this is a great film to see on the big screen, with your pals, enjoy it while it plays and then dissect it after wards! I am assuming that you have read both Irene Adler vs Mary Morstan: the Women Of Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes & the Temple Of the Four Orders. I loved A Game of Shadows and I can't wait to see it again!
As I noted earlier, I think the reason why critics are giving A Game of Shadows such a difficult time is two-fold: first, they are mis-remembering their reception of Guy Ritchie's original Sherlock Holmes of 2009; its a film that grew on them after they posted their reviews but, my point is, they acted like they didn't like that one, either and now, comparing A Game of Shadows to Sherlock Holmes, it's like the first one was their greatest movie of all time, but they're not remembering how much they dissed Sherlock Holmes when it initially came out. Secondly, A Game of Shadows is true, genuine chaos theory, not the glitzy-glam, rock-n-roll introduction into pop culture it had in Jurassic Park, but the serious mathematical and social implications of the theory. Since chaos theory has become so indoctrinated into culture, film critics are taking for granted what the film is doing and how well it is doing it.
The larger frame of chaos theory in which the film exists, the balance point of equilibrium maintaining the whole structure, is between the mathematical professor Moriarty (Jared Harris) and the poor fortune-teller Madame Simza (Noomi Rapace): a world-player and an insignificant vagabond; a multi-millionaire and a gypsy, an international diplomat and a nomad. What thread connects them? Simza's brother, who has agreed to commit an assassination for Moriarty to start an international war. As Holmes tells Simza (who is NOT Holmes' love interest in the film), "I see everything, that is my curse," Holmes symbolically sees everything because he's been sitting in on Moriarty's lectures (in disguise, of course) and learning how the professor sees everything so it's the Sherlockian perspective of knowing what Moriarty knows, seeing as Moriarty sees.
This is one of the opening shots, reminding us of the volatile world in which we live, and that's why chaos theory, with its elaborate scheme of connections and inter-connectivity is an appropriate vehicle. Further, chaos theory is appropriate for Sherlock Holmes; in fact, I doubt any other theory is big enough to accommodate Holmes except chaos, because, like Holmes, chaos knows and extends itself into everything. The breadth of knowledge and skill the detective has requires a theory broad and deep, and the new writers for A Game of Shadows knew just where to go.
Watson narrates the story because Sherlock Holmes has died, and Watson wants their last adventure together to be remembered, and the sacrifice his best friend made for the stability of world peace to endure. The film opens in 1891, many years before World War I would erupt on July 28, 1914, but the entrance onto that threshold begins in A Game of Shadows. Why is this important? Holmes tells us the "thesis" steering Moriarty in his evil plot: "He owns the supply and now he will create the demand," referring to the seemingly unconnected deaths of an opium dealer and a cotton tycoon, the buying up of the steel industry and a gun business after the owners' deaths are all connected to "war on an industrial level" which Moriarty plans to wage.
In the  beginning of the film, Holmes, dressed as an opium smoker lies, on the street, supposedly drugged when Irene Adler walks by him. He follows her and relates to her that three men have been following her for 30 minutes, and then she tells him that 4 men are her escorts. They then make a dinner date for 8 o'clock that night and she tells her escorts not to damage his face, and they proceed to beat up Holmes. Holmes manages the four men just in time to keep Irene from getting blown up in an explosion similar to the one pictured above. The importance of this scene is, just as in Sherlock Holmes when Holmes dresses as a beggar with an eye patch and follows her to Moriarty's carriage to discover who she is working for, she realizes it too late; typical of Irene, she realizes everything too late for it to be able to do her any good, and this is the downfall of those who lack wisdom: they are overconfident in themselves and fail to believe anyone else is as talented as they themselves.
War, as chaos theory has taught us, is not just the atrocity of killing soldiers; it's not just generals giving orders, it's not just outnumbering the opponent, it's not one leader against another leader. War is starvation, bad weather, incompetence, brilliance, landscapes and geography, war is surgery and bandages, war is fuel and energy lines, war is spy craft and intelligence, war is the personality and confidence of egomaniacs and businessmen, war is the front line and the thin red line, and how an incoming tide can effect a battle plan or how a lack of fuel can keep the "desert fox" from victory, . . . all that comes from what chaos theory has taught us about the world: everything is connected and effects everything else, and Moriarty knows that and that is why he has bought up the cotton (for bandages and uniforms), opium (medicine), steel (equipment) and guns (arming soldiers) so he can profit from humanity's "insatiable desire for conflict."
Do you remember in the 2009 Sherlock Holmes when Irene breaks into Sherlock's apartment and he slams down a photograph of her onto a table, then, as she leaves, she puts it back upright, then as he leaves he puts it back down? This is the outfit she wears in that photograph (and she wears it later in Sherlock Holmes as well, in the upstairs room of The Punchbowl where he boxes and he explains to Irene and Watson why Blackwood is going to bomb Parliament). Why is this outfit important? Blue usually symbolizes wisdom, but not in this case, it means depression, and specifically, Irene is depressed about working for Moriarty (that's why she wants to meet in a public restaurant where she believes she will be safe, because she knows she is in danger, and that danger is the source of her depression). When the photograph Holmes has was taken, however, Irene wasn't as advanced in the path of sin and self-destruction as she is now, but Holmes retaining that photo of her presents to him, unconsciously his ideal of her, that she could be reformed (at least a little) and they could have a future together, but knowing that she broke into his apartment and his first thought was to check his safe, he realizes, putting that photograph of her face down, that she has no face anymore, she has abandoned herself to a life of crime and has lost herself in it. The purpose of her wearing this same dress is to remind us that we ourselves are not photographs, we change, for better and for worse, and if it's for the worst, we'll end up like Irene: dead.
Just as we saw the Temple of the Four Orders in Sherlock Holmes take order (such as the order that exists in Christianity, for example) and pervert it, literally turn it upside down, so Moriarty takes the laws of math and capitalism and perverts them to his own ends against the rest of humanity. An example of how lethal his calculations are is the death of Irene Adler (we are at least led to believe she dies, I kept expecting Moriarty to bring her out to use against Holmes but that didn't happen, at least not in this one). As I noted in Sherlock Holmes and the Temple of the Four Orders, in our first introduction to Irene, she's talking but we don't hear what she's saying; in the second introduction, we hear her words, but we don't see her; translated, this means that she is not where her words are, or, in other words, her words are not a part of her, she's a liar.
Irene had passed Holmes dressed as the opium smoker earlier, then set her 4 escorts on him so she could deliver a bomb to a plastic surgeon during an art auction. The surgeon insisted that Irene stay while he unwrapped the package and when he and Irene realized it was a bomb Holmes turns up to save her,... again. This is one of many scenes invoking other movies. In this specific scene, an art auction is going on when it's discovered there is a bomb in the room, which summons Cary Grant's character from Alfred Hitchcock's North By Northwest and Paul Newman's character in Hitchcock's Torn Curtain. Like in Mandelbrot sets, there is action occurring within action: the action of the art auction is undermined by the drama of the bomb. Like Grant and Newman, Holmes links the two events to achieve a satisfactory resolution. But the reproduction of Hitchcock's signature style in A Game of Shadows is important for another reason: like the action within the action itself, now there are movies within movies, Torn Curtain within North by Northwest within A Game of Shadows; extending that tradition and reproduction is itself an act of chaos.
In the clip below, Irene meets Moriarty at a restaurant where she is to have dinner with Holmes later that night. She was to have delivered a letter that Holmes stole from her but she doesn't tell Moriarty that, she lies to "protect Holmes" but it doesn't do any good; before she begins speaking to Moriarty (when the clip below opens) she asks that a fresh pot of tea be brought to her because she fears poisoning but that doesn't do any good:
Moriarty now tells Irene that she is no longer bound to employment with him. She gets up to leave and starts stumbling out, taking out her handkerchief and coughing blood into it, falling and gasping for air. Later, Moriarty gives Holmes the blood-stained handkerchief (white with the large I within the A of her initials) and tells Holmes that she died from a rare form of tuberculosis. It was probably in the moment when the waiter poured the tea through the strainer. Why is this important? It mirrors the truth about Irene, which is the only way to get truth out of her. Irene is like the waiter serving her tea: Irene serves up a "filtered" truth to Moriarty about what happened to the letter; Irene not knowing what was contained within the letter and how important it is to Moriarty, is like Irene not knowing the virus in the tea and how deadly it is to her. The "white lie" is as deadly to Moriarty as the tuberculosis virus is to Irene (because a corpse turns white after death, that is why a white lie is deadly, it resembles a corpse).
We're not used to seeing Irene wearing gloves, and the black gloves she wears in this scene signifies that her strength (arms are a symbol of strength) has died (black is the color of death) and she has nothing left with which to defend herself from Moriarty. It's not just that Irene has succumbed to her feelings for Holmes, it's also because she has maximized her potential for evil, like a vessel that is completely full of rot and filth, she just can't hold anymore; Moriarty, in not being wise, looks for a "reason" of betrayal that he can understand: weakness from emotions. Not being able to accurately diagnose the cause of Irene's betrayal means that he will also inaccurately diagnose what Holmes is willing to do to stop him and why.
Because  tuberculosis is a disease which is very sensitive to "initial conditions," (the health of the patient when they first contract the virus, any genetic tendencies towards developing tuberculosis in family history, the method in which it is contracted, the particular strand they contract, etc.) Irene's death by tuberculosis provides another angle on chaos theory for us: the reason it was a fast acting virus is because, in lying, Irene was "open" to receiving the virus, in other words, a lie is a sin, which is a form of death to our soul, so Irene was all ready sick and it didn't take much for the virus to begin acting
The expensive top hat, suit, vest and professorship provides the "urban camouflage" Moriarty wears to blend into the background of a Europe on the brink of war. Please note the castle in the background of the image above, to the right of Professor Moriarty, it's the setting for the chess game between he and Holmes.
Why does Moriarty not seem evil enough to some critics?
Because he's just like the business men of today.
In the 2009 Sherlock Holmes, the villain, Lord Blackwood, had a crooked tooth; since the teeth symbolize the appetites (as a part of the mouth) we can understand Blackwood's appetites to be "crooked" like his tooth; in A Game of Shadows, Moriarty has a gap between his two front teeth; why? The gap symbolizes the natural gap in the laws of math, physics and capitalism which Moriarty exploits to satisfy his appetites. It's that he's a business man par excellence that is so villainous; it's that he's so well-versed in mathematics and the law of physics, employing them for assassinations that's so villainous. That critics don't think he's evil enough is validation of his perfected "urban camouflage" inspiring Holmes to come up with his own.
One of two times in A Game of Shadows that Holmes wears what he describes as "urban camouflage" which perfectly blends him into the background. The purpose, besides providing amusement at Watson's cost, is to balance the urban camouflage worn by Moriarty that permits him to move from the academic arena into the diplomatic arena and into the business arena, which only Holmes is able to track. On a larger scale, it recognizes that we are all a part of the system, anything we do alters the system, but, being a part of the system, that makes it extremely difficult to make accurate observations about it because you can never totally divorce yourself from a situation and Moriarty proves this to Holmes when Holmes makes a mistake.
What does Irene's TB virus, Moriarty's tooth and Holmes' urban camouflage all have in common?
Chaos theory and Mandelbrot sets.
A great example of a Mandelbrot set is a Russian doll: there is a smaller doll within a larger doll, and that doll is within a larger doll and that doll is within a larger doll; they each look exactly alike and have the same characteristics, yet they encompass each other and, unless you open it up, you don't know what it contains. These "repeating patterns" are what the phrase "History repeats itself," is all about. Another good example is Aronofsky's film Pi, when he's looking for the number to start repeating itself, he's searching for the outer border of the reality in which we live, and knowing where that border is gives him the advantage of knowing where he is in relationship to that border. We could say that this is a bit like fortune-telling, which is why Simza is a fortune-teller.
Watson has purchased a car, seemingly the only one in London, in which they drive to meet Holmes' brother, Mycroft for Watson's stag party. Why is there a car in the film and why is it Watson and Holmes driving it? Please note the goggles they wear, emphasizing their eyesight. The machinery of the car reflects the greater machinery of war Moriarty attempts to set in motion for the destruction of humanity (and his own profit) whereas Watson and Holmes (in an invention that will revolutionize the modern world) are themselves the vehicles of civilization because they are sacrificing themselves for a greater good, not Moriarty who sacrifices humanity for his own good. Sherlock Holmes A Game of Shadows provides us with an important moral lesson: all civilization will benefit when we work together towards greater goods; all civilization will suffer when we think only of ourselves, as, for example, in Margin Call.
Herein is a perfect example of the mathematical face of chaos. Holmes has met with Moriarty and Moriarty threatened Holmes that if Holmes doesn't stay out of his way, Moriarty will kill Watson and Mary. Holmes "disguises" himself (I'll discuss that below) and saves Watson and Mary, but the worst of Moriarty's attack is still to come, so Holmes has worked out a plan to save Mary:
"I timed it perfectly," is not a mere matter of timing (as Holmes and Watson analyze the scene of an assassination by Sebastian Moran later in the film) there is the wind, the horizontal velocity, the vertical velocity, the speed of a train, the depth of the water below, the potential struggle which Mary might have physically put up before being pushed out of the train, all these are factors which chaos theory has taught us to include in our calculations because it effects the outcome of the equation. Later, Sebastian Moran, one of the best shooters in all Europe, has killed a diplomat and Watson and Holmes analyze the scene of his shooting the way we have just analyzed the scene of Holmes "saving Mary."
The morning after Watson's stag party and meeting Madame Simza. Mary triumphs over Irene Adler, as I pointed out in my post comparing the two women, and while we have seen Irene die, we now see Mary, not only wedded, but secure, happy and successful in her aiding of Holmes and the police in bringing down Moriarty. Why is it Mary to whom Holmes sends the deciphering codes? Think of this symbolically, if you will: Mary still hasn't learned how to decipher Holmes, and Holmes giving her a role to play in bringing down Moriarty brings up Mary to Holmes' level and aids her in understanding what Holmes does so she will come to trust him.
There's another feature of chaos theory which this scene with Mary points out to us: language.
It seems strange, doesn't it, that there can be any variance in language: it is so stable, yet the word "trust" is what's unstable in this conversation Holmes and Mary have. "Do you trust me?" Holmes asks Mary, and she replies, "No." What Holmes means by "trust" is, "Do you have confidence that I can work out a plan to preserve you and get you out of risk's way?" Why doesn't Mary understand what Holmes is really saying to her? Because she understands "trust" to mean that trust based on love for the other person: Mary thinks Holmes asks her, "Do you believe that I love  you more than myself and have only your greatest good in mind for you?" and of course she doesn't believe that, knowing how Holmes tried to sabotage their relationship.
"Granted, it's not my best disguise," why is this not his best disguise? We know from watching Holmes that he does an excellent job disguising himself (and critics complain that he wears too many disguises in this film but that is to highlight how bad this disguise is) so why is this one so "bad?" Because it's so good, and it's not disguising, rather, it's revealing, and I mean that in a good way. The red lipstick Holmes wears emphasizes his mouth, which could easily be a sign of appetites, for example, if Irene Adler were wearing red lipstick, however, since it's Holmes wearing it, we can take it to mean that his "words are of love," that what he says is coming from his love for Watson and Mary. The blue eyeshadow highlights his eyes, so (since blue is the color of wisdom) he sees what needs to be done to protect the two of them. His dress not covering his muscular arms combines the feminine and the masculine, so, since it is his arms that are showing (and arms symbolize strength) we can conclude that his strength in this scene comes from his ability to recognize his emotions and love for Watson and Mary and that's his motivation for protecting them. Homes is not disguising his emotions, he is revealing them. I am sure that you recall from Sherlock Holmes when Holmes puts his violin bow in Watson's face and they argue, "Get that out of my face," which this scene invokes, which is to reverse their roles, literally, because Watson is the more caring of the two and Holmes the more "instrumental" and now Watson can't understand this new light in which he is seeing Holmes because he's not used to it and that makes it difficult for Watson to trust Holmes although Holmes truly has only the best intentions for Watson in mind and heart.
How does this illustrate chaos for us?
"Trust" should be a stable word, it's only a word, after all, yet their personalities, their experiences, their understanding of their own selves and of what they perceive of the other, all this goes into "coloring" what Holmes means and what Mary means by "trust, and that's why, in the same scene, Watson gets upset by Holmes, because they have different ideas of  "killing" Mary: for Watson, putting Mary in harm's way, i.e., pushing her out of the train, was harming her, but allowing her to remain was, for Holmes, harming her.
This is a great shot: please note how the light--symbolic of truth--directs us to his eyes so we can see what Holmes sees and why he is able to see it. In some ways, you can compare the life and education of Sherlock Homes to Groundhog Day: Groundhog Day taught us to make good use of our time and to do things for others, to utilize our skills and talents to their fullest possible potential and Sherlock Holmes is the living proof of that lesson.
Before we discuss Mycroft and Moriarty, let us take a moment and discuss two important aspects of Holmes brought out in this film. First, in the shot just above, please note the orange scarf he wears around his neck: orange is the color of life because it combines yellow (the color of gold which invokes royalty, hence our inherent dignity) and red (the color of appetites but also the color of love) and so orange is the color of vibrancy. Why doe Holmes wear this in A Game of Shadows? This challenge Moriarty presents has enlivened Holmes and given him "a new life" after the loss of Watson's friendship in his immediate life. As usual, the neck indicates for us how we are led, what "yoke" or leash do we have? The challenges and risks associated with this case of Moriarty has brought out the best in Holmes (at least regarding his skills and talents) and he's being led by that which gives him life, or, in other words, will help him fulfill his destiny, which Moriarty's case is doing: everything about Holmes has been created for this ultimate battle and Holmes is willing to completely give himself up for it which this clip below emphasizes:
In Sherlock Holmes, he was drinking medicine meant for eye surgery, and as I pointed out, that was because, symbolically, the eyes symbolize wisdom, so Holmes was readying himself for the case of Blackwood to "widen his gaze" so he could see what Blackwood was up to. In A Game of Shadows, we see that, just as he's ecstatic and at the peak of life because of what this case has done for him, he's drinking embalming fluid because he also knows how close to death he will come and so he's "taking in" ways of "preserving" himself in the upcoming battle.
Now we move onto Mycroft in this clip in which we are first introduced to him:
What we have in this scene, in our introduction to Holmes' brother Mycroft, is the affirmation of Holmes' own intelligence because his brother exhibits it, too. Their banter in observation over each other, and picking up clues about where they have been and trying to outdo each other in keenness offers us a further example of chaos in A Game of Shadows, for example, the chimney needing to be cleaned out results in the soot staining Holmes' clothes and face; Mycroft changing his brand of soap either results in the chafing of his skin or has healed chafing that was resulting from his old soap. The point is, everything produces a detectable result, an effect, (popularly known as the Butterfly Effect, e.g., even the flapping of the wings of a butterfly can have an effect on the environment), and it is Holmes' signature style to see the effect and induce the cause; Moriarty will use this against Holmes, knowing how Holmes works. The scene below provides us with some f the difficulties of what Holmes encounters with this case:
The plants which Holmes grows demonstrates how meticulous he is in researching every possible lead that will help to to discover a break-down in the system; Watson's inability to perceive Holmes hiding in the background reflects us and our inability, when looking at a vast system (like seemingly unrelated crimes and deaths) to pick out what "stands out" what "doesn't belong" or what is the clue or the connecting thread? Holmes' ability to do this is his greatest weapon against Moriarty. A Game of Shadows, however, instructs us that we ourselves must be able to do this as well, and examine, as Holmes does, everything going on in the world and see if it is not some part of a larger design.
Watson, Mycroft and Simza in Switzerland before the peace summit (Trish kindly pointed this out and upon seeing the film a second time, realized that my earlier identification of the scene as being in Mycroft's home was totally mistaken). Please note, above Mycroft's head, to our left, is a picture of the Immaculate Heart of Mary. Holmes having "saved Mary" on the train, and Mycroft having been in a boat in the water waiting to fish her out then taking her into his custody and protecting her in his home, really symbolizes the protection of the Church. Something like the placement of that picture isn't accidental (like the St. Thomas picture in Sir Thomas' bedroom in Sherlock Holmes). Please note also that the picture is up high, above everything else and we can take that symbolically: above everything else in A Game of Shadows, is God and heaven, the angels and the saints and the genuine purpose for which we were made and created. Still don't believe me, do you? Remember, please, that it was a cathedral which the nationalists and anarchists bombed in the beginning of the film, and that's what has caused this whole mess.
Now, the important question: why does Mycroft walk around naked?
In you will recall, in the 2009 Sherlock Holmes, Watson and Holmes were in the prison yard after the ship had been released into the water while it was still under construction, and Watson gets upset with Holmes and accuses Holmes of always hiding his plans from him. That is why Mycroft walks around naked. If Holmes keeps his plans "covered and secret," Mycroft "exposes" himself and his plans, being completely "open" with anyone and everyone. Mycroft and Sherlock are brothers but they are opposites.
On the left is Sebastian Moran, one of the best shooters in Europe and a former member of the British army. If you look at Moriarty's right hand, to the right of it is a small, reddish notebook. If the full-length black leather jacket was the sign of Lord Blackwood's appetites in Sherlock Holmes, the little red book is Moriarty's. It's red because that is the color of the appetites and leather because leather is made from animal skin, so, specifically, it denotes his animal passion for conflict and destruction. This little red book is wherein Moriarty records all his wealth and plans and which takes Holmes forever to steal from him. It is when Holmes and Moriarty formally meet for the first time that Holmes notices a book on the Art of Domestic Horticulture and the dead plants in Moriarty's office that Holmes finds the key to deciphering the red leather book. The book on horticulture and Moriarty's dead plants counters Holmes' apartment and the thick, lush plants which Holmes has grown demonstrating how the soul is like a plant and Moriarty's is dead while Holmes' is vibrant.
There's a truly amazing chess game, towards the end, in the castle with the waterfall between Moriarty and Holmes. Having done some research, chess fanatics say that yes, the chess game they play is legitimate: Moriarty and Holmes get up and leave the chess board as they walk on the terrace, and continue the game in their heads, calling out their moves (so, not only are they remembering where their own positions and moving are accordingly, they are remembering the others positions and the most recent moves). According to Adam Raoof, the chess consultant on the film, "[N]ot much of the footage of the actual game we filmed survived the edit, but it was a famous Larsen game with reversed colors and using some variations."
Why is the chess game so important?
Chess is a war.
Director Guy Ritchie prepping Harris and Downey on the chess scene between Moriarty and Holmes on the castle terrace. Why does Holmes challenge Moriarty to this game? Does Holmes think he can beat him? I don't think that Holmes is confident of beating Moriarty, but you keep your friends close and your enemies closer. While Holmes and Moriarty play chess on the terrace, Watson and Simza are inside trying to find her brother, Rene, who is about to murder a diplomat and start an international war. In this way, Holmes' and Moriarty compare their actual chess pieces to their "bishops" inside the peace conference (Simza and Watson for Holmes, Sebastian Moran and Rene for Moriarty), and this creates a system within a system. Don't buy it? Look over Ritchie's right shoulder, into the room in the background, the floor pattern mirrors the chess board they are sitting around (in the trailer you see a formal dance with people waltzing on the floor and that's the peace summit wherein Moriarty's plans unfold for starting a war).
Larsen, of course, refers to Bent Larsen who was a daring, creative chess player, known for his seemingly reckless opening moves. I confess, I do not know as much about chess as I should, however, it appears that the specific Larsen citation is to the Bishop's Opening and, just as Irene had failed to be alerted to Moriarty's skill in controlling a situation at the beginning of the film (his ability to make all the restaurant's patrons leave at the sound of the chiming), so Moriarty makes the same mistake against Holmes in failing to be properly aware of Watson and his powers. Yet chess exists throughout the entire film, for example, Holmes has to save a diplomat from a bomb and having found some clues, Holmes believes he knows where the bomb will explode; going there, he finds a chess piece Moriarty had left for him in that exact spot so Holmes would know he had been mistaken and Holmes would know that Moriarty knew. However, Holmes mistake at this point is his blessing later on, Moriarty counts on Holmes making another mistake but Holmes successively sidesteps it. (If you are interested in Sherlock Holmes and the employment of chess in his pursuits, you might enjoy the Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce version from 1943 of  Sherlock Holmes Faces Death where the solving of a riddle comes down to the moves on a chessboard).
This is the first face-to-face meeting of Moriarty and Holmes; it's important that Moriarty sits and Holmes stands because Holmes is spiritually, intellectually and psychologically "above" Moriarty. The book in Holmes' left hand is one of Moriarty's published works and Holmes' asks him to dedicate it for him. Looking at the sample of handwriting Moriarty has unwittingly provided, Holmes concludes that he is "morally insane." Using chaos theory, Holmes concludes that because Moriarty is so criminal, there must be an effect of that apparent in his handwriting, similar to Holmes wanting to dissect Blackwood's brain after his hanging to see if there were some deformity that would be of benefit to science.
How is Moriarty evil?
The point of Moriarty's schemes and his employing plastic surgery tells us that the face of evil has changed: it's harder to fight evil when you don't know that it looks just like you. Moriarty is the criminal of the here and now and of the future, not the kinds of criminals like the Joker from Batman or even Lord Blackwood who was a satanist: Moriarty looks like every other businessman or professor and that's a warning to us not only to be on guard against it, but to make sure that our own activities don't become like Moriarty's that our innocence doesn't turn into guilt because we exploit systems for our own good.
After Holmes has failed to stop a bomb from going off and Holmes, Simza and Watson enter the meeting room. Examining what has happened, Holmes realizes that, even if he had stopped the bomb, Moran, from about 600 yards away, was shooting the target and not taking a chance on the bomb killing him (too many possible conditions could go wrong) so, as Holmes tells Watson, "No one looks for a bullet hole in a bomb explosion," but Holmes has been training himself to do just that: his experiments in urban camouflage has taught him what tell-tale signs to look for and he finds it.
My last point: A Game of Shadows invokes numerous films.
I mentioned above the references to Hitchcock's Torn Curtain and North By Northwest, but there is a third Hitchcock film, the 1940 Foreign Correspondent which won an Academy Nomination for Best Picture that year. Van Meer is a peace negotiator trying to keep the world out of the second world war and he, like Moriarty, likes to feed pigeons (there are many similarities but I will mention just this one, for now). "Bad people do bad things because they can" reminds us of a line from Boris Karloff in the 1935 horror classic The Raven with Bela Lugosi. There is a reference to Pulp Fiction when Holmes has died from injuries while they were under fire in a forest and his heart stops beating; Watson injects him with a shot of adrenaline just as Vincent does to Mia after her overdose.
Examining from where Moran made the fatal shot and everything he took into account to make it.
The reference to A Beautiful Mind with Russell Crowe is pictured below with the "web of conspiracy" that A Game of Shadows borrows. The last reference I was able to catch is to Jet Li's Hero.  Moriarty and Holmes mentally imagine a fist fight they might have after they have played chess just as Nameless and Sky have a battle in their minds in the chess court. But A Game of Shadows also knows it exists within the Sherlock Holmes Canon: when, for example, Moriarty pulls up to the castle in a sleigh, it references the 1985 film Young Sherlock Holmes, when the film closes after Moriarty has arrived in a sleigh.
The web of conspiracy which Holmes has been using to train his mind to see traces of Moriarty in crimes taking place. One last item in this place where it absolutely doesn't belong, but oh, well. The girl being sacrificed in the beginning of Sherlock Holmes is just like Europe in A Game of Shadows. Moriarty points out to Holmes that even though Holmes got the telegraph to his brother, and all the diplomats have been warned, no one is stopping Moriarty because we all have an insatiable desire for conflict, so that ignoring of the warning is just like the girl in the Satanic Sacrifice picking up the knife with her own hand and being willing to take her own life.
So what's the point of this? A cinematic Easter egg hunt?
No, it's far more important than that.
It demonstrates to us an additional layer of self-awareness of the film, that it knows where it has come from and to what it belongs. It's one of the dolls inside the larger dolls and it tells us that it has smaller dolls within it, we just have to look for them. Why? Because then we will realize that we too, exist within a larger doll, and either that doll is the Body of Christ or it's the evil empire of Satan, but no one is outside the system, the system includes us all, and in this game of shadows where we can't and don't see everything like Holmes does, we see enough to know that we must pick sides and be careful in how we choose.

22 comments:

Trish said...

Great lot of interpretation here, some inspiring A ha! and some rather less of a positive effect.

One note: The image is not of the group in Mycroft's home, they are at a Swiss inn that is within sight of the Reichenbach castle.
(If I did not spell that right, please forgive.)

I'll visit this site again.

Thanks,
Trish

The Fine Art Diner said...

Trish, excellent call!
I saw the film for a second time Wednesday night and realized, "Oh, I need to change that!" so it has been corrected.
Thank you so much!

Trish said...

Hey again Fine Art Diner ::

I saw the film for the fourth time last night. I find it deeply entertaining, charming and a fitting tribute to the original character.

Reading the stories again, I find Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal to be on the mark with what's written.

There are the sentences lifted from various stories ("You know my methods," is in at least three of them) but we are also treated to Holmes's cutting, dry humour and his drama-loving impulse, which I love.

Even though Holmes is often characterized as a pure logician, in the books he often displays emotions: Pride, concern, passion, irritation, excitement, and so on.

His most reliable emotion, though, in both books and movie, is his platonic love for his friend, Watson.

In another post of yours about Irene Adler "vs" Mary Morstan, you really apply more of a projection than an analysis of the two characters. I say projection because you are discussing archetypes of femininity as characters, rather than human women as characters. (That they are characters complicates this point, but I'll continue just the same.)

Allow me to do something similar with Holmes.

The Holmes of Robert Downey Jr. is fascinating because he encompasses a set of masculine archetypes from the lowest—a fool—to the highest—a man who strategically sacrifices himself to save his friends and, moreover, many other lives.

He plays the fool as only one with insight can, and he sacrifices himself like a Buddha. (One story goes that the Buddha, in one of his lives, he fed himself to a tiger so she would not starve, nor her cubs.)

He survives the fall, as we see, but given the reality of rocks, cold and distance, he is gambling with his life for a higher cause.

In between these extremities, we find Holmes the "natural man", able to eat, drink and (almost) dance with gusto.

We find Holmes the "active man", able to fight like a champion and overtake his more thuggish opponents.

We find Holmes the "intellectual man", as he takes the science of detection and deduction to an almost classical level.

And we find Holmes the "wise man", who is able to meditate during crisis points in his life to draw upon reserves of power that are unavailable to even the highest of intellects.

In short, we find an individuated man, complete in all aspects.

That he has sworn off women is only natural.

This isn't to say it is necessary for all men to do so along the path of individuation, but it does follow, for both genders I have heard, that once a certain level of awareness is reached, the sexual impulse is either sublimated or transformed into other forms of energy.

That's why Holmes can truthfully claim he 'represses' nothing.

=========================

Trish said...

Enough about my interpretation.

Now I have a few questions for you.

First of all, thank you for digging up the interesting bits about the chess game. I was wondering if that game would actually play out in real life, and it was a delight to see it already has.

Don't you think your analysis of the handkerchief goes a bit too far?

For one, neither Moriarty nor Holmes would handle such a virus-laden item so carelessly if the poison was 'fast-acting TB'.

I think Moriarty was being factious when he said it or the writer's did not think it through.

As for "white lies" being deadly and so forth, and what each colour represents, this is where your analysis runs too deep and in dubiously straight channels.

You say your blog is for the glory of Jesus Christ but you seem to interpret films as if they are His own expressions, rather than the result of a collaboration of creative artists working on a film.

Although I love the details you dig up and enjoy reading your thoughts, I think it's a mistake to imagine that the art director, the writers and anyone else involved share your particular ideas about colours and kerchiefs.

The movies aren't a message from God, they are team efforts based upon hundreds of humans, thousands of ideas and millions of factors.

Are you really claiming that they reflect a communication of religious or moral ideas from a divine being even so?

Trish said...

Okay -- my LAST comment for today, and it's to ask your opinion about a colour detail in the film:

What is your take on who plays black and who plays white in the shadowy chess game?

The motif is introduced in Moriarty's academic lair, and he is black.

The black king sits under the statue in Don Giovanni. It's left as Moriarty's mark, but could also indicate the surrender of a king.

In the climax, Holmes takes the black side, and wins.

Do you speculate anything particular about the colours here, or do you think it's just one of those things?

The Fine Art Diner said...

Trish, I really do appreciate your challenges to me and the time that you have taken to ask me to defend my positions, thank you sincerely!
Thank you as well, for your very in-depth analysis of Holmes and the way he exhibits various traits and his processes of individuation. I agree, he is a fascinating character and I think Robert Downey Jr. does an excellent job of presenting him for contemporary audiences!
About the chess game: let me think over this through the weekend, because that's the primary reason I went and saw the film again; I do not know nearly enough about chess, but it's vital to the film, and I want to ponder it just a bit more.
You have an excellent point about Moriarty and Holmes handling the TB handkerchief; this is a scientific point, and I need to do a bit more research, however, it appears that a person with TB has to have it for several weeks before they can pass it on to someone else and it may be with the virus the film presents us with as well. I have never heard of a fast-acting TB virus, however, we have seen Holmes and the scientific experiments he carries out, and the slew of scientists Moriarty has at his command, so it's possible that this situation is possible; I'll do some more research and let you know what I find.
About my analysis on the handkerchief: no, I don't go too far and if I could, I would go even further (that's not what you wanted to hear, is it? ha ha). Two reasons: first, Holmes does that kind of in-depth analysis with Rene's paper so the film itself invites us to look for clues because "we know Holmes' methods" and it's part of how exciting the film is to get to "participate" in our own ways. Remember when Holmes smells the cigarette left by Moran and identifies the killer because the tobacco is from Afghanistan? Looking for clues helps us, like Holmes, to construct the larger, but unseen story taking place because everything leaves a trace, a clue of itself, and we can either take advantage of it or not.
Secondly, the entire history of art supports this analysis. You might be interested to read my post How To Eat Art which was made on August 31, 2010. I am happy to assure you that I am being totally unoriginal in my application of color theory and that's the point: if I were the only one who was privy to that information, what would the point be? There would be artistic chaos, but because there is a generally accepted understanding that colors DO SAY SOMETHING, the history of art has formulated a basic understanding.
The reason I dedicated this blog to the Glory of Jesus Christ, is so that I don't forget from whom my gifts come, and to use them for His Glory, not for my own. For example, I am being pressured to watch some films that I feel are contrary to the good of my soul, but others feel it would increase my readership if I analyzed them; instead of putting the number of readers first, I am (trying) to put God first, I don't believe it would be good for my soul to see those films, so I am not going to see them.

The Fine Art Diner said...

Trish, I do apologize if I have caused you to think that I BELIEVE that films are "His own expressions, rather than the result of a collaboration of creative artists working on a film." I assure you, I don't believe that at all. It is precisely because there are so many artists that it amazes me when there is a coherent statement made that does SEEM to support the beliefs of Christianity but this rarely happens. I would never, for example, intentionally twist a film to make it say something Christian that was obviously wasn't, or even Satanic or otherwise, but what I do try to do is, whether secular or Christian, bring out messages within symbols and theory for myself and others. Because of the vast amounts of money spent to create films and spent on watching films and owning films, as well as the time for making films and watching films, I think cinema is an excellent gauge of what dilemmas and problems society sees in itself and how it attempts to work out those problems. I don't anticipate that art directors, writers "and anyone else involved share my particular ideas about colours and kerchiefs" but there is a long history of "collective understanding" about symbols and what they mean that is available to everyone because on some level we all understand it, whether we articulate it or not. That is the difference between good film making and bad film making, the directors and writers who have that "sense" of what is right for a film and what isn't and we judge a film's worth on the level of cohesiveness it achieves. For that to happen, we all have to have an understanding of what cohesive is, even is we don't take time to explain it.

Trish said...

Hey again.

Thank you for responding to my comments and for clarifying that you do not believe these films are expressions of God.

Like everyone's, your analyses seem to reflect a personal mental model. In your case, the mental model seems to be a mix of Catholic Christianity, film history and art history.

My mental model includes feminism, an interest in screenwriting as a craft and Jungian archetypes.

I find your views interesting precisely because your mental model differs from mine.

But I only agree that this film seems to support Christian beliefs in the sense that Western civilization, law and order, and notions of crime and punishment also supposedly reflect a Christian foundation.

In looking for information that is consistent with what we already think, want or feel, we reveal a confirmation bias.

So when it comes to a film making a coherent statement supporting Christian beliefs, the key word is indeed, as you have highlighted, SEEM.

"... everything leaves a trace, a clue of itself, and we can either take advantage of it or not."

(In the books, Holmes has written a monograph of various tobaccos and the ashes they leave.)

But it does not follow that the colour of gloves was chosen because it represents an idea about death, nor does it follow that the colour of a scarf was chosen because it represents the attributes you list.

Trish said...

I guess what fascinates me most about you now is that you expound upon chaos theory and also Christianity.

I'm wondering if your understanding of chaos theory includes some speculation that, even when humans do not intend to express Christian beliefs, they do so simply because that is the way the 'balls line up' so to speak.

For example, in Sherlock Holmes A Game of Shadows, it cannot be proven that the costumer chose the colours in the tradition of art history as you present it.

From where we sit, as viewers, no deduction is really possible.

As Holmes said in writing, "It's a capital mistake to interpret without data."

The film as a whole is its own entity. It is not meant to be read as raw data which we can interpret.

To get at the raw data, you'd have to ask the costumer designer WHY she chose an orange scarf and whether or not she'd heard that the neck represents what we are yoked to.

If she chose the colour for other reasons :: Perhaps because it contrasts well with the blue light of the film so that we can see Holmes in crowd shots more readily :: then your spiritual analysis is an interesting exploration of your own confirmation bias and not a reflection of the truth of the film as it was intended by its creators.

The Fine Art Diner said...

Dear Trish,
Again, thank you for your comments and your challenges; I appreciate the time you take to question my approach and sincerely thank you for your help in exploring these issues.
I have posted my response to your comment that interpretation is not possible in the post What Is Art? & Is Interpretation Possible? because it requires a great deal of analysis. I am having to post my responses in several installments below, I apologize for that, but I do want to be thorough.
Please explain for me, if you will, why you believe that an ART director would not have any education in ART?

The Fine Art Diner said...

You say that my "spiritual analysis is an interesting exploration of (my) own confirmation bias and not a reflection of the truth of the film as it was intended by its creators."
Please, if you will, prove to me that YOU DO HAVE "the truth of the film as it was intended by its creators,"; I never said that I did nor did I ever cite that as my aim for writing the post. Trish, you have the burden of proof that the "truth of the film" is accessible and that every interpretation of a work of art has to be dependent upon what the artist intended and that no one is allowed to offer their own perspectives.
I guess this comes down to my poor writing skills that I failed to draw out these Christian symbols throughout both films. In the first film Sherlock Holmes, Lord Blackwood is a Satanist and the four symbols (the man, lion, eagle and ox) of the Temple of the Four Orders have, for two thousand years, been associated with the Four Evangelists of the Gospel (both in Ezekiel and Revelations); Blackwood reads from “Revelations” when Holmes comes to see him in prison and Homes automatically knows the Scripture written on the wall of the pig factory “I am he that in liveth.” A Game of Shadows, the opening shot is of a cathedral being bombed; when Holmes "reads" Simza's fortune, she asks him "What do you want," and he lays down the card with the devil and Holmes says, "The devil." In Switzerland, there is a picture of the Immaculate Heart of Mary over Mycroft's head. If I am doing a spiritual analysis of Sherlock Holmes, it is because all these symbols I have listed are traditional symbols of Christianity (it is your burden, for example, to demonstrate that a painting of the Immaculate Heart of Mary isn't a Christian image, or that the devil is not a part of Christian theology, or that verses from the Bible aren’t Christian). I could not have structured a moral critique of the film had the structure not all ready been present within the film.
I agree that we ARE our beliefs and our paradigms, we can never get out of ourselves AND I agree that it is wrong to intentionally construe an interpretation of a work of art which obviously counters what the film presents (for example, if the first film Sherlock Holmes had been celebrating Satanism and promoting it instead of fighting it, it would be ridiculous for me to say that it was actually supporting Christianity). I agree with that.
However, you can't say that IT'S NOT a film about Christianity if the only reason is that you do not like what I am saying and don’t like my interpretation of the film because that is YOU ENFORCING YOUR OWN BIAS against Christians or Christianity (or both).
You cannot unfairly hold me to being limited to my own paradigm and beliefs, because we both know that's human and I am a human being. I can’t accuse you of a Feminist reading because you are a Feminist; I have the burden to demonstrate that a Christian reading is equally valid or more rewarding (and that would be up to independent readers to decide) but you have not produced a Feminist reading of, for example Irene Adler which debunks my observations that the film seeks to hold her up as a bad example for culture. Please, if you have a better understanding of what Sherlock Holmes and A Game of Shadows means or wants to communicate to viewers about Irene Adler being a positive role model or glowing citizen, I would welcome your interpretation!

The Fine Art Diner said...

Interpreting without data:
Trish, you and I have two varying definitions of what “data” is. You limit data to “primary knowledge” about the film maker’s intent; whereas I see the data as being THE FILM ITSELF; if it weren’t data, how on earth could we bare to watch it? We have to “process” the dialogue, the locations, the characters, the story line as it progresses, the motives, the expressions, etc., that is all data! And we have to process it or we are vegetables sitting there! In the course of processing, we come to “bumps,” or “glitches,” and we don’t understand something and we start thinking about it, searching for a way to make sense of it. Examining all the other parts of the film can aid us in understanding what doesn’t seem to make sense.
Further, Trish, since it has been released, it is “complete” data because the film makers have said, it’s done and ready for release.
The quote you provide, "It's a capital mistake to interpret without data," reminds me of the first film Sherlock Holmes, when Watson and Holmes are walking to Madison and Haig pawn brokers and Watson says, you have to admit, Holmes, that a supernatural explanation is possible in this case (speaking of Blackwood’s resurrection) and Holmes concurs, but adds that it would be a mistake to make facts fit a theory instead of adjusting a theory to fit the facts. I agree with Holmes. You and I are in disagreement over what qualifies as a fact and what qualifies as data and what to do with data.
I very much appreciate your comments and I want to answer them as fully as possible so I may need a bit of time before I respond, however, I will, gladly and with gusto, but I also want to provide you with the response you deserve! Thank you for helping me!

Trish said...

Speaking of orange again...

Here is an interesting example of the literal appearance of an orange at a turning point of The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=gbcrHOQPctc

Check out around the 7-minute mark.

:-)

I don't know the story and haven't seen the end yet...

johny said...

can you tell me if this castle in Switzerland is real and where is it located?

The Fine Art Diner said...

Johny,
The Reichenbach Falls are real, in Switzerland, and the place where in the stories, Holmes and Moriarty fight and fall in; however, no, the castle built over the waterfall is not real. Hope this helps!

Molloy412 said...

I saw the film for the first time last night and was enthralled. I enjoyed the humour within as well. I picked up on the chess pieces and the reference to Holmes playing black at the end so good to read your interpretation.

I was interested to read in your blog the various film references you have noted. I see in your Blog you comment "How is Morairty evil?" and your reference to the Joker in Batman. This reminded me that in the Train scene Holmes himself appears as the joker when the lipstick is smudged across his face.

I also noted another scene, perhaps the music as much as the mule Holmes rode, which reminded me of "Two mules for Sister Sara"

I wonder if this is just me looking for additional hidden references or if you saw these and any others?

The Fine Art Diner said...

Molloy412, EXCELLENT!
I have to admit, the pony and horses ("slow and steady wins the race,") was throwing me a bit (laughing so much at the scene that I was not paying as close attention as I should have!) but that is a wonderful call by you!
Films exist within a context of other films, because film makers are film watchers, just like us, and what they see and like makes its way into their films so "informed viewers" (those who will recognize the reference) are not only rewarded for having great taste in films, but they also enjoy an added dimension to the storyline and characters by the incorporation of "adjacent information" (it has been so long since I have seen Batman, that I feel compelled to go back and watch it now so I will have greater insight into that situation that Ritchie is "quoting" to us who catch it). I actually have not seen 2 Mules For Sister Sarah, so I am being penalized, ha ha, for not having seen it, but now have reason to because Ritchie has pulled it out of the film archive of 1970 and made it relevant again for today's "film needs." Excellent work!
Thank you for taking the time to leave your comment and if anyone else has caught references to other films, I hope you will fill us in!

Farzand said...

It was very interesting to read your thoughts, thank you!

What do you think about the tarot cards and it's meaning for both movies?

You pointed several times in your other posts the parallels to Lewis Carroll and Alice. The books are about 2 games: chess and cards.

It's almost seems like tarot is the the key to the whole thing, the code. Cards can illuminate the present, clarify the past and show the future, quite literally. Holmes himself apparently knows the language of tarot and and reads it with ease. Also, by the way, it happens at the same exact moment when Watson is playing cards (minor arcana ;)) downstairs.


The things that strike the eye:

Hanged man, several times in both movies, figuratively and literally in the case of Blackwood hanged by his foot.

Tower, the tarot card image is tower stricken by lightning and falling to rubble on top of a man -- Watson collapsing the factory tower with the missile.

Devil: several times again. Card used for Moriarty, it has a picture of a goats head (there is also a close up of almost the same exact picture in the first movie), Holmes has a goat in 221b Baker st.

Fool, of course -- fool, embarrassing himself. The fool on the tarot card has a small white dog. Gladstone?


It's by far not everything, but I so much have to see the game again: to see everything the first time, (especially with all the humor, action, Jude Law's looks and RDJ's wild eyes distracting you all the way), you have to be Sherlock Holmes!

Farzand said...

http://www.learntarot.com/journey.htm

The Fine Art Diner said...

Farzand,
Thank you so very much for your illuminating comments! I agree with you completely on the importance of the Tarot images and their relationship to events occurring within the film (the game mirroring reality) it just gives us one more reason to love the movie!
Thank you so much for taking the time to contribute your insights for all of us to enjoy because it certainly adds another dimension and one more layer to savor!
Thank you!

Farzand said...

Thank you!

One more thing: why Holmes plays black.

That's the default. He always plays black because he is the detective, not the criminal. It's has to be the criminal who plays white and makes the first move. Hence his self destroying boredom between cases -- the game has not been started.


Thank you again! It is really interesting to talk to you!

The Fine Art Diner said...

Oh, goodness, that was my bad, I really thought Holmes was white not because white would correspond to good or anything like that in this case, rather because Holmes got to establish the pace of the game and it would be his genius, not Moriarty's which would alter the course of events, on and off the game board. Thank you, very much, for pointing that out because I was for sure that Holmes had the first move, greatly appreciated and thank YOU so very much for visiting and taking time to post your comments!