Allow me to elaborate.

[mercat]

So I was going to write about Sherlock Holmes. BUT ALLOW ME TO FEMINIST!RAGE FOR A SECOND FIRST.


So Jon and I are sitting in psychology, and we're talking about physiological factors. In this case, we are talking about how someone's brain, in extreme cases, can have physical effects. In the example we are talking about how sexually repressed the Victorian society was and Freud's beliefs on that, particularly women in Victorian society. How guys can enjoy sex but women have sex to have babies, and then they take care of the house, et cetera. We're also talking about how very strict societies can cause mental stress when one feels things that seem okay but society claims as morally and socially wrong. Our modern-day example (since this was the overview class, not a deep examination yet) was homosexuals in conservative cultures. ANYWAY, so in this Victorian-times example, a woman comes to the doctor/psychologist/diagnostician/idk with her hand paralyzed. And our professor (who is a hilarious guy, btw) asks, what do you think she was doing that caused her brain to paralyze her hand? What was she dealing with?

And, you know, class that's 90% freshmen, no one wants to say anything, haha, and the teacher knows, so he kind of smiles and says "Does anyone want to say it?" and of course, no one does, but one talkative up at the front says "Can we use euphemisms?" And the professor says, no, I want someone to say it. So we're all kind of waiting and this guy a few seats in front of me raises his hand and the professor calls on him and the guy says "Because she was pleasuring her man?"

LET ME TELL YOU I WAS SEETHING. Thanks, dude, for showing the world that you--at least subconsciously--support those very ideas we were discussing. That men get pleasure and women do the work.

FUCK. YOU.

Argh.


Anyway, Sherlock Holmes. I enjoyed it. I think the complexity of Holmesian stories maybe made it a bit too convoluted, but it's still pretty damn good. And the dialogue is fantastic, not to mention the action and slapstick humor. And Jude Law and RDJ are hilarious together, although I completely forgot Rachel McAdams was in it, and she was awesome, too.

My only problem with it is that they don't really show you the clues so you're puzzling over the mystery; I mean, you're certainly engaged in the story. But I just enjoy plot twists and murders and detective stories more when the evidence has been staring you in the face, yet you missed it. =/ Idk. But it wasn't bad, that's for sure.

Also, Blackwood's snaggletooth bothered the hell out of me. GODDAMN.

Anyway, the way they presented the mystery was great though. The final twist, as it were. And I did like that Holmes was not presented with his deerstalker, though he did almost always have his pipe. And I loved RDJ's portrayal of him as kind of an egotistical intellectual. Especially with all his snarky comments, GOOD TIMES.

And playing the violin like a uke. OMG. Hilariously awesome.

Oh, and the soundtrack was really good, I think because it was so unique. Very odds-and-ends feeling, but in a good way. I don't think I've ever been so conscious of a soundtrack when watching a movie (disregarding musicals, let's say).

So, yes. Definitely recommending it. And definitely spending my $25 Barnes and Noble christmas gift card rectifying the absurdity that I have NEVER READ HOLMES.

And Carroll's Hound of the Baskervilles (or Wishbone's for that matter)... I don't really remember it. It was kind of crazy, I know that. And I wore the murderer's Crazy Dress my senior year and let me tell you that was my favorite dress. It was super-flowy and awesome. Lol. Important things.

Comments

[laughingrat.livejournal.com]

WELL DUDE IT'S NOT LIKE WOMEN HAVE ORGASMS OR ANYTHING

WHAT ARE YOU, SOME KINDA FREAK

I should probably just give in and go to this goddamn movie already. *sigh*

[mercat.livejournal.com]

WHAT ARE YOU, SOME KINDA FREAK

Well, yes, but that's beside the point... =P


Also, yes, it was very entertaining. :]

[wise-panther08.livejournal.com]

Woah woah woah. They totally show you the evidence of the main story because sherlock ignores everything else and focuses on it and the camera work for those scenes are fantastic.
Whats someone doing with that kind of weapon back then? Why is he interested in that while Watson is looking over there. Totally showed the evidence =P, at least to me.

But I definitely agree, that it was a well written and well acted movie. I like how they kept in Doyle's style of Holme's flashbacks to describe how he gained the knowledge that he did for certain things.

(I think I managed to avoid any spoilers, but I'm not sure =P)

[mercat.livejournal.com]

Well, I guess that's what I mean, then, and I suppose I don't like Doyle's style much, then. I don't want to be told after the fact, I like things to be shown subtly and then you have to sort out what's relevant and what is irrelevant for yourself. =)

Quote the opposite of CSI, I guess, where every shred of every episode is relevant =/