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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
"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."
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Why is the chess game so important?
Chess is a war.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
"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."
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Why is the chess game so important?
Chess is a war.
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).
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.
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. |
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:
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
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!
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.
=========================
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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!
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...
can you tell me if this castle in Switzerland is real and where is it located?
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!
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?
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!
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!
http://www.learntarot.com/journey.htm
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!
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!
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!
Post a Comment