A Gay Sherlock Holmes Movie?
Posted by: Nikki Dowling
Filed in:
celebs, video
5:10PM, Tuesday August 4th 2009
Personally, I’m pretty excited about Guy Ritchie‘s upcoming “Sherlock Holmes” flick, starring Roberty Downey Jr. and Jude Law. From the preview, it looks pretty intense and I’m into the ninja thing that Sherlock has going on. But I became even more intrigued when Robert Downey Jr., said in an interview this week that in the movie, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are gay lovers. Downey Jr., who plays Sherlock, said that he and Dr. Watson (aka Jude) are “...two men who happen to be roommates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It’s bad-ass.” [Metro UK]
Hmm, so was Robbie kidding or just trying to drum up blog posts like this one? Cause in the preview, Sherlock totally makes out with a girl. But, hey, you never know.
We do know, however, that some people are already advising against a gay twist. Film critic Michael Medved said, “I think they’re just trying to generate controversy…They know that making Holmes and Watson homosexual will take away two-thirds of their box office. Who is going to want to see Downey Jr. and Law make out? I don’t think it would be appealing to women. Straight men don’t want to see it.”
Um, what? This dude needs to slow down, take a deep breath, and think about this a little more. I think it’s kind of a cool idea. It could make the film way more interesting and multi-dimensional. I’d be pumped to see a little Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law action. “Brokeback Mountain” and “Milk,” which both also featured hot and heavy makeout seshs between straight actors, were both very well-received. Maybe this is different because, in the book, Sherlock Holmes was straight and those two movies were about, well, gay men.
Then, of course, there’s the whole pushing boundaries thing. I’m always happy to see the gay community represented in mainstream media. It would be nice, for once, to see a story about gay men that isn’t entirely focused on sexuality and chock-full of stereotypes. These two detectives are pretty masculine, and obviously gay men can be, too. They don’t just sit around gossiping and critiquing girls’ outfits.
Do you think a gay “Sherlock Holmes” movie is box office suicide or a brilliant idea?
TheFrisky.com is part of the Turner Sports and Entertainment Digital Network
Sobriquet
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 04:29 pm: [report]
I’m a huge Sherlock Holmes fan, having read all the novels and short stories about him written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and like many other Holmes devotees I would not be surprised to find out Conan Doyle wrote Holmes as a gay character. He’s a confirmed bachelor who never shows the slightest interest in women (except for Irene Adler, though that is, in my belief, more intellectual admiration than love or lust of any sort.) In fact, he shows contempt in them seeing them as a waste of time. Watson does get married, but the relationship is never really developed in any meaningful way and at some point his wife just disappears and he moves back in to Baker Street. Holmes and Watson having a homosexual relationship is not a far fetched idea and certainly not a new one, people have been speculating for years. By god, the part in The Adventure of the Three Garridebs when Watson is shot practically reads like a romance novel:
“You’re not hurt, Watson? For God’s sake, say
that you are not hurt!”
It was worth a wound—it was worth many
wounds—to know the depth of loyalty and love
which lay behind that cold mask. The clear, hard
eyes were dimmed for a moment, and the firm lips
were shaking. For the one and only time I caught a
glimpse of a great heart as well as of a great brain.
All my years of humble but single-minded service
culminated in that moment of revelation.
“It’s nothing, Holmes. It’s a mere scratch.”
He had ripped up my trousers with his pocketknife.
“You are right,” he cried with an immense sigh
of relief. “It is quite superficial.”
His face set like flint as he glared at our prisoner, who was sitting up with a dazed face.
“By the Lord, it is as well for you. If you had killed Watson, you would not have got out of this room alive. Now, sir, what have you to say for yourself?”
I think I’ve made my point.
tigerstripe
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 04:29 pm: [report]
I’m all for men making out in movies, but it has to be relevant to the plot. In this case I’d say it’s better to be true to the story. Also, I’m pretty sure that in the 19th Century it was totally common to share beds with other people, that didn’t mean they were getting it on.
LayD
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 05:14 pm: [report]
It would be suicide, not because of the homosexual context, but because it wouldn’t be true to Sherlock Homes. I agree with tigerstripe, if the characters weren’t already esatblished and stories already developed, perhaps a movie about a male dectective and his male sideckick as lovers would be quite favored. It is just not appropriate with a story that everyone is already familiar with as a non-homosexual relationship. We can infer what we want from text, but the movie should be left as is.
pinkwhiskey
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 06:06 pm: [report]
I love Sherlock Holmes. But I have become an avid fan of the Mary Russell/Sherlock Holmes series by Laurie R King. Having read and re-read them so many times, it’s hard to put Holmes in the gay category. Possibly, bisexual in his younger, drug-addled years, but definitely a fan of the ladies as well.
TotallyRidiculous
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 06:59 pm: [report]
He doesn’t think watching Jude Law and RDJ make out would be appealing to women?!? DUDE. I don’t know where this idea that women don’t like watching two hot guys make out came from. Just because we don’t talk about it all the time or try to trick drunk guys into doing it, doesn’t mean we don’t think it’s hot. Just because it makes some men uncomfortable doesn’t mean we don’t like either. We are just polite enough not to talk about that in front of you *ahem*. Two hot people making out is hot, doesn’t matter what combination of sexes it is.
But I HIGHLY doubt that is actually going to happen in this movie.
Silver_Stag
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 07:15 pm: [report]
tigerstripe is right, men sharing beds was a common practice in the 19th century. Abraham Lincoln even did it on several occassions, but then there’s the whole ‘was Lincoln gay?’ debate that just opens a whole other can of worms. From Downey Jr.‘s quote I get the feeling he was just making a fun statement and it’s being read into a little too much, but I could be wrong.
crimsonletter
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 07:41 pm: [report]
Are they kidding? I know a ton of women who would seriously LOVE to watch RDJ and Jude Law make out!
And seriously—this movie is taking liberties anyway, from the original book. And the books, as stated above, were actually quite slashy/subtextual when it came to Holmes/Watson. Really, they seemed FAR more interested in each other than they ever did for women, and yes Irene Adler was impressive because she was a woman who tricked Holmes, which he respected. He never had a romance with her.
I think it’s great the film wants to play up the subtext of a relationship between the two of them. That sounds awesome! I doubt they’ll make it anything explicit, but frankly, I wouldn’t mind if they did.
Also, this is hardly new. Books have been written that pair the two of them, for example: http://www.amazon.com/My-Dearest-Holmes-Rohase-Piercy/dp/1419676326/ref=cm_lmf_tit_22
Sobriquet
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 09:16 pm: [report]
Crimsonletter-Exactly. I have absolutely no problems with a little bit of “artistic license” - playing up the relationship between Holmes and Watson being a really good example. What I do have a problem with, though, is that the characters I see in that trailer are simply not the brilliant, ascetic detective and loyal, uncomplaining doctor I’ve come to love. I’m just slightly miffed however at this hijacking of great literary characters. If they want to make a movie about victorian zombies and snarky detectives, fine, but don’t write them as being stupid enough to get themselves chained ... Read Moreto bedposts and then have the audacity to say they are the beloved creations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Because they’re not and this is simply going to contribute to the further degradation of the characters’ integrity in the general consciousness, which is bad enough with the dorky looking deerstalker and the erroneous “Elementary my dear Watson” bit.
Sorry. I get grumpy when people abuse my favorite works of literature for profit. Movie adaptations are almost guaranteed to piss me off so I almost never watch them.
Sobriquet
wrote on August 4 2009 @ 09:17 pm: [report]
Oops, ignore the “Read more” bit in the middle there, I copied some of that from a facebook discussion I had with a friend.
Have2Comment
wrote on August 5 2009 @ 01:34 am: [report]
I’ll be honest…I’ve never read a Sherlock Holmes book or anything of the sort, so I can’t speak on sticking true to the books. Though, I can say, if you expect it to be a carbon copy, we all know you won’t like it because film and literature are two very different types of mediums and must be handled accordingly.
Technique aside, I feel that if they were to make the characters gay, it would be best if they kept it subtextual. As a gay man who finds both Downey Jr. and Jude Law to be very hot, a make-out scene would be amazing…but like someone said, would it be relevant to the plot, or even necessary? As a filmmaker, it appears that the path they’re taking is one more of humor, so I think they’d do best if they played it up in a humorous way. We have the Brokeback Mountain and Milk for straight-guy fantasy make-out/sex/“I Love You’ sessions…in this movie, though, I think they’d do best to keep it subtle and humorous.
AbbyUNC07
wrote on August 5 2009 @ 07:49 am: [report]
Is this one of those things taken out of context, like that book saying Abraham Lincoln was gay? If Ritchie interprets Holmes and Watson’s friendship as romantic, that is one thing, but people need to realize that friendships between men in the 19th century were different than today. There was nothing “suspicious” with expressing affection for a male friend. And people often shared beds because they were expensive!
phlebotnum
wrote on August 5 2009 @ 08:27 am: [report]
Sheesh. I’m with Sobriquet. I’ve read many SH stories (but not all) Holmes and Watson are delightful companions. Whether you choose to believe there was some lovin’ going on behind the scenes or not, they are obviously very close and have an intimate domestic friendship and living situation. If the movie chooses to queer the text visually then there’s certainly ample support for doing so. And the opinion of one unimaginative male movie critic who is uninterested in watching JL and RDJ make out will not stop me from seeing the movie on opening night and, if it’s good (or at the very least fun), buying a few more tickets for repeat performances.
tabby
wrote on August 5 2009 @ 09:20 am: [report]
There was much homoeroticism of the Victorian Era and having Holmes and Watson exhibit it would be accurate to the period and, as mentioned previously, to the subtext of the novels. But that reviewer is daft if he thinks women won’t flock to the movie if they know they will get to see two gorgeous men making out. Doesn’t he know that many, many women watch gay porn so we can see hot guys making out? We should be so lucky to get to have Downey and Law for our entertainment!
bumble_bee
wrote on August 5 2009 @ 10:20 am: [report]
im actually quite excited to watch this, i doubt that there will be any making out of any kind but one can hope!
pandoraxsage
wrote on August 6 2009 @ 06:47 pm: [report]
I was excited about this movie when I saw the trailer at Harry Potter. I’m even more excited now. As a pansexual woman, I really hope that this rumor is true. That would be hot, indeed.