Head-to-Head: Sherlock Holmes Part 2 (Robert Downey Jr. v.s. Benedict Cumberbatch v.s. Ian McKellen)

Robert Downey Jr. played Sherlock Holmes in the Guy Ritchie series, 'Sherlock Holmes' (2009) and 'A Game of Shadows' (2011)

I like Guy Ritchie well enough as a director generally, but he does have a tendency to go overboard with his stylistic choices quite frequently in films. His 'Sherlock Holmes' series is no exception as each and every scene is directed and paced with such kinetic, frentic and disordered energy that it really comes across as quite dizzying, verging upon annoying. They're decent enough action films but the mysteries are quite ludicrous, the suspension of disbelief required is more like a complete upheaval of it, and its treatment of female characters seems to be, to say the least, rather indifferent. The first film is actually a fun enough ride, and the second has its moments, particularly with Jared Harris and Stephen Fry's good performances as Moriarty and Mycroft, respectively. But beyond some cool setpieces and effects, there's just not much there.

Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Holmes here is not particularly complex. He's a neurotic, snarky, paranoid, drug-addled, flirty and overall rather oddball sort but to be quite frank, when you get down to it it's pretty much Tony Stark with a British accent and more overt and excessive mannerisms to show the ECCENTRICITIES of Holmes. Now I'm not criticising this as a mannered performance at all as many of Downey Jr.'s greatest performances ('Chaplin', 'Tropic Thunder', 'Natural Born Killers', 'Less than Zero') are incredibly mannered performances too. I will say though that in those films it feels like he's trying to create a character through those mannerisms whereas here it feels he's coasting a bit on his quirk and charm? And in this respect I don't think it pays off as well as in say the 'Iron Man' series, or 'Kiss Kiss Bang Bang', where he finds ways to both imbude his natural charisam Poitier-style into similar characters but with alternately badass/comic bents. What I mean to say is that Downey Jr., one of the best actors working today whenever he tries and still a good one when he doesn't, kind of just does all these little odd quirks with his character and just calls it a day. So like Johnny Depp post-Jack Sparrow, although at least Downey Jr. chooses good films to he in. And he also has good chemistry with Jude Law's John Watson; but then again, I've always seen that as being more the actors themselves having great camaraderie, rather than actually finding its way into the characters a la 'Angels with Dirty Faces' style. Feel free to disagree with me.

Downey Jr. handles oddball Holmes well enough yes, and is also good in the action scenes, and whenever the film delves a bit deeper into the darker side of plot and psyche he's always more than up to task. He's never bad, and he makes it convincing that this Holmes is this extent of brilliant and that extent of badass, but I can't help but wish I could see Downey Jr. play the sleuth in a more subdued version of the sleuth's escapades. As it is, he's a solid enough action hero and an interesting enough ball of quirk.

Robert Downey Jr. in 'Sherlock Holmes' (2009) and 'A Game of Shadows' (2011): 3.5/5

Benedict Cumberbatch is playing Sherlock Holmes in the television series 'Sherlock' (2010- )

'Sherlock' is now officially one of my all-time favourite television series. I particularly love how for once, Dr Watson is not just a foil but a perfectly competent and fascinating character in his own right. It's a brilliant dynamic which drives the series, which has oundles of clever and crisp writing, ingenius updating of Conan Doyle's stories whilst retaining the original brilliance, and fleshing out the supporting characters and subplots verhy well. If I have any reservations about the series, it'd be that it's a bit too clever for its own good sometimes. Then again, does it not warrant that already by having at its centre, Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal as a self-confessed 'high-functioning sociopath' of Holmes, who may well be the cleverest Holmes of them all?

I would say this version of Holmes is above all almost inhuman in his abilities, and the mere fact that in Cumberbatch's hands it never feels unrealistic that this Holmes can track taxis down by a mental GPS, has seemingly omniscient vision of his surroundings, and can pinpoint seemingly unrelated facts and clues at whim, is a grand achievement in itself. From the very first episode, the assured manner in which both actor and character carry themselves, demostrates just how comfortable Cumberbatch is in the role. There's firstly that intelligence which I suppose is already an intangible to most of Cumberbatch's performances (I mean, could anyone really buy for a second his performance in 'August: Osage County'?). He goes beyond that though by pairing this intelligence with a neverending thirst for stimulation for it; like a drug addiction, really. Cumberbatch could've gotten away by just playing Holmes as supremely smart, that baritone intonation really speaks for itself, by making sense of it all through that unquenchable drive. Instead of just being a self-aware and self-indulgent genius, Cumberbatch makes him an impulsively selfish being who is all the more brilliant to it.  This Holmes is just awesome in that he almost always has an answer for everything, and even if he doesn't, he'll find a way. You always see the gears working in this portrayal not of the acting, but of the intellectual ballast of Sherlock Holmes whenever Cumberbatch, in action or sitting down in seeming passivity, is on the ball. In just simply conveying Holmes as a genius, Cumberbatch is incomparable.

It's an incredible intensity which Cumberbatch gives to Holmes which makes no mistake of showing him to be a largely insufferable and makes it evident why many would consider him to be a 'freak'. What Cumberbatch does very well is showing that it's not all down to his sociopathy, that certainly plays a role as we often see him parlay it for investigative purposes. Strikingly so in his interactions with the police force and crime scenes where he shows almost a lack of interest in the human quantity of the cases, preferring instead to show excitement and inappropiate fascination with the means to the end, rather than the ends in themselves. 'The Hounds of Baskerville' is perhaps the most evident example of Cumberbatch using Holmes as a shameless manipulator, who tricks everyone and turns the tables on everything without any empathy whatsoever, just to get to the bottom of things. In this respect I think Martin Freeman (an excellent performance as John Watson) and him work extremely well with one another because the former has just such a unassuming and sweet nature about him that they merge into one very odd couple, that helps to measure and balance both actors' strengths and pit them both against and in accordance with one another. They're a convincing team and more importantly, so very fun to watch; Cumberbatch and Freeman are

Again Cumberbatch seamlessly merges these sociopathic qualities with the more unwitting and more sympathetic elements of his social awkwardness. For example, Louise Brealey's Molly (a very underrated performance, in my opinion) displays a strong and not very subtle attraction to Sherlock, which sets up many of the fascinating beats of Cumberbatch's performance which shows him almost trying to replicate normal, sociable human behaviour, only to be offset by his intrinsic lack of understanding of these norms. Whether he's trying to charm her into letting him see a body in the mortuary, confusion over Irene Adler (Lara Pulver) and her seductive methods, or failure to comprehend why people are crying at a wedding speech he's making etc. Cumberbatch imbeds a streak of awkwardness to his portrayal that's both very believable and also rather endearing and entertaining. I wouldn't call him the funniest Sherlock (that'd be Rathbone, in my opinion), but Cumberbatch's portrayal of Holmes is certainly not lacking in humour. A lot of it is black humour, involving among other things, a severed head in a fridge, jokes about murder, and in 'The Great Game' snarky remarks made while EXPLOSIVES ARE ABOUT TO GO OFF, and a lot of it could have come across as off-putting were Cumberbatch not so good in delivering these lines. A master of the deadpan, his quirks never come across as enforced, unnatural or superfluous because Cumberbatch inserts them all into the flow of his characterization and the plot so effortlessly that it becomes just another aspect of Holmes that is rather endearing.

Also, regarding this Holmes' characterization, he's cold but not heartless. Though professing to see each case on its own as just another puzzle, just another game, whenever betrayal or loss of life in relation to himself ensues, Cumberbatch knows how to put an appropriate degree of emotion into these moments. They're often brief reaction shots but Cumberbatch does well to make an impression in these scenes. Martin Freeman gives the more emotional performance in the series an he's amazing (I'll stop there), but Cumberbatch is certainly no slouch in some of these weightier moments. What I love most of all is that even in moments where he's holding up that steely front of condescension and intelligence he's not unsuspectible to slights and attacks. For example in the episode 'The Blind Banker' when remarked upon as being 'hated' by his old schoolfriends, he shows hints of hurt and sadness, showing that deep inside this Holmes there's a lonely little man, making his friendship with Watson ring all the more resonantly and powerfully. Perhaps best of all though is his handling of his character at wit's end at the end of season 2, 'Reichbach Fall'. As his reputation gets gradually torn apart by Moriarty, Cumberbatch's portrayal of Holmes beginning to let cracks in his hide become prominent is simply magnificent. I never knew I could be so moved at a portrayal of Holmes before Cumberbatch and McKellen's portrayals; they've certainly found incredible depths for the characters.

It's the little things which really make this a great performance for Benedict Cumberbatch. He's perfectly cast, yes, the whole way the series is devised is pitch-perfect for his portrayal; but can anyone besmirch that, seeing as how brilliantly he's attuned himself into it, and never forgetting to add just a bit more to the character? I am not the biggest fan of Cumberbatch generally (I find him a fine but somewhat overrated actor who does some of the same schtick over and over again), but here he's incredible. He may well be the Aaron Paul sort who can only ever play one sort of character, but like Rathbone, what a glorious sort of character it is.

Benedict Cumberbatch in 'Sherlock' (2010 - ): 5/5

Ian McKellen played Sherlock Holmes in 'Mr Holmes' (2015)

'Mr Holmes' is my favourite film of 2015-2016 so far (albeit with a strong contender in the form of 'Mad Max: Fury Road'). It has flaws (Laura Linney's 'accent', a couple of slow patches, the storytelling structure gets a bit muddled at certain points), but none of them distract from the fact that it is overall, a most excellent and finely made film. Bill Condon, taking a similar approach to his earlier 'Gods and Monsters' (also starring McKellen, there as horror director James Whales), depicts an elderly Sherlock Holmes, haunted by his past and searching amidst his waning memory for a few last clues to solve an unresolved case. It's an incredibly quiet and understated film which may not work for everyone but it certainly did for me.

I mention 'Gods and Monsters' because McKellen's performance here actually follows very similar beats in his portrayal of Holmes to Whale. Both are nostalgic and intelligent men whose best days are past them, the difference I would say though is that Whale was depicted as a charismatic, energetic and hedonistic fellow even in old age, when we are first introduced to McKellen's Holmes he's depicted as a gruff, miserly but not wholly so, and most importantly rather tired old man. McKellen uses mannerisms to age himself even further beyond his years with his grunts and huffs and puffs; this is certainly a mannered performance but it works beautifully in accentuating the wear, tear and history of Holmes. There's an insensitivity and sense of broken pride to every movement and word he says in these initial 'present-day' scenes that's never very overt, because this elderly Holmes is a fairly reserved man, but still evident because McKellen is just so good at showing this very precise manner of man. Yet he refuses to keep the audience entirely at a distance. What's amazing is that McKellen doesn't exactly generate warmth to the character but rather a sort of weakness to this Holmes, we haven't even seen anything of his past yet and yet we can tell that he's a shell of his former self and thus, perhaps more open to normal human interaction than he ever would've been.

I'll get into more about Holmes' past in a bit, but for the timebeing let's look at his 'elderly' Holmes characterisation. Now in these initial stages I would say McKellen has the greatest challenge out of any Holmes, which is to suggest brilliance through implication. What I mean by this is that though this Holmes passes his days tending to bees and chatting with his housekeeper's sweet young son, Roger (Milo Parker, in a very naturalistic child performance), the story necessitates that he show whatever remnants of the former brilliance he still has despite having imposed upon himself exile and disconnect from the rest of the world. In this respect McKellen is great. The onset of dementia is of course marvellously played as an increasingly weakening factor in his slow descent, but at the same time brings out the determination, and hints of his former passion for sleuthing, in his portrayal. The inquisitiveness he brings to just a pleasant conversation here, a sweeping look or glance there, shows that while he may be in retirement, his brian is forever trying to piece together mysteries both big and small, none more than the one that haunts him most, the one that drove him to his retirement. The initial stages of his investigation set up many very effective scenes with Parker, in which the latter effectively plays a replacement Watson in discussing the finer points of little clues around Holmes' study which may link him back to his past. In these scenes there is a restoration of some semblance of joy and enthusiasm in Holmes which McKellen beautifully paints.

Yet he never becomes a stereotypically cheery old grandfather figure as there is always that element of his past behind him. A particularly great scene of his involves him sitting in a cinema, watching a fictional depiction of Holmes (by Nicolas Rowe no less, who played a schoolboy Sherlock Holmes in 'Young Sherlock Holmes'--talk about meta casting), a clear parody on the earlier Holmes films which depicted Holmes as heroic and always succesful to no fault. Now this deconstructive nature of this scene may have not worked as well, or not worked at all, in other hands (especially for one like me who loves some of those old flicks with Rathbone), but McKellen plays it beautifully. On one hand he scoffs at it and criticizes it for being a complete fallacy, on the other hand there's an inner pain which implies at both shame at not being the man whom people have idolized him to be, and even a wish to be more like the onscreen/fictional Holmes, one who gets it right every time. It's amazing how McKellen conveys such a searing sense of pain to each of these nostalgic yet haunted moments without feeling repetitive; each moment in the present is an opportunity for McKellen to portray the man of present and past, and he takes each of them and makes it his own.

Technically speaking the way in which the film switches back and forth starts off in a bit of a muddled style, but thankfully McKellen is at hand to make it a nearly seamless transition. There is no sense of disconnect at all between past and present, and yet also such a clear line of distinction between the two McKellen doesn't just leave to the makeup. The Holmes of the past is by no means any typical Holmes, in fact in vein of the aforementioned deconstructive take, he readily admits to not being many of the things Watson describes him as in his novels. Yet despite this honesty there is always that hint of artifice, of arrogance, to his past portrayal which shows the logical astuteness of Holmes, how he very consciously moulds himself around this characteristic of his and is entirely self-assured about it all. McKellen hits these notes flawlessly as he presents a Holmes who is not quite the overly romanticised idea of the detective, nor does he want to be. He brings the right sort of realism to his portrayal of a supremely logical man by never overdoing the intellect of the man, but instead subtly weaving it into his general disposition towards not only his cases, but life in general.

McKellen's most subtle moments of acting are involved in the scenes where he has to track down the troubled wife of a client (an brief but amazing performance by Hattie Morahan). Within his often silent reactions to his deductions and sleuthing McKellen speaks volumes through just a glare or stare to show the brilliance of the man. The high points, however, are when he finally confronts the young wife and gives her the 'final solution' to her problems. In this scene McKellen alternates from being a charming old man, a willing listener, and finally to a cold, unsympathetic and highly logical man. He mends this different aspects of character wonderfully and the effect is incredibly effective. McKellen, by slowly stripping away the character's shield of logic, makes it all the more heartbreaking when he takes it up once more and denies human contact in favour of logic. He brilliantly plays (without spoiling too much) how Holmes has slipped out of this former self and into his present self, by so unsettlingly and movingly showing how this final case has broken him, and helps to set up (chronologically) the big dramatic scenes of the story.

I suppose it was always to be expected that McKellen would bring more than just the intellectual brilliance of Holmes to the role, but it really did surprise me just how emotionally volatile his performance gets at times. The 'present' scenes of the film, where Holmes has suffered the repercussions of approaching matters of the heart and companionship as matters of logic, are where McKellen gets his technically speaking, 'Oscar-y' scenes. I won't call them that because they are so, so much more than that, they are probably the greatest scenes of acting I've ever seen from McKellen, and no hyperbole, of any depiction of old age. The scenes in which he struggles about looking for natural remedies to help recover his memories, and tries to remember what it is he's seeking, are just incredible, as are the subtle hints of him agonizing over his increasingly poor memory. Even greater are the scenes where he's entirely helpless, succumbing to pain and needing the help of others to stand, walk and even talk. McKellen is just so hard to watch here because he's so great at doing this.

His best scenes in this respect are however, two particularly moving scenes. One where he calls out Roger for attacking his mother over their menial position in life. Linney is great in this scene in showing how deeply her son has huty her, Parker's Roger is also effectively nasty but in the right, childish sort of way, but it is McKellen who brings the real power into the scene by showing how years of being cold and distanced from people have shown him that it's not the way. The other is the breakdown scene. I won't get into all the finer little details since I don't want to spoil the film for anyone (just watch the film), but it is well earnt by both film and actor and McKellen. It's particularly disconcerting to see Sherlock Holmes break down in tears, and though it's actually a fairly quiet breakdown in the grand scheme of breakdowns it is also extremely tragic and moving. Within a few moments McKellen reduces his character into a nothingness in terms of logic but overflowing with feeling and sadness, he's terrific.

Most of the Oscar contenders for 2015-2016 have yet to come out yet, and admittedly I think the likes of DiCaprio, Fassbender, Redmayne etc. may have a much greater chance at nabbing the Best Actor statuette. For now, however, it'll take something pretty incredible to knock 'Mr Holmes' off my Best Picture win for the year, and something transcendent to sully my support for McKellen to take home the Oscar for his work as Sherlock Holmes which is a rarity; a performance that is even more brilliant than advertised.

Ian McKellen in 'Mr Holmes' (2015): 5/5



Photo credits:
fanpop.com
radiotimes.com
www.out.com