A and A's Movie A Day

Watching movies until we run out.

The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire

May 3, 2011

The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire

Through a contact at Amanda’s work we have acquired a number of new movies for our collection and thereby delayed the end of our movie a day project. One of these new acquisitions is this made-for TV Sherlock Holmes movie from Hallmark Entertainment. Now when I think of Hallmark made-for-TV movies I think of sappy programs aimed at bored housewives, but apparently (if the fantastically cheesy movies previewed before the feature on this DVD are any indication) they also have a penchant for making the kind of inexpensive cinematic drivel that never fails to amuse me. I mean, look at these previews! Patrick Stewart and Kyle McLaughlin in Mysterious Island (with the most fake looking CGI mantis I have ever seen) and Peter Fonda, Luke Perry and Tia Carrere in Supernova. These are my kind of cheese!

This movie doesn’t actually fit quite into that mold. It is a non-canonical Holmes story with a fun title card at the start of the film explaining that Holmes is in the public domain and nobody with any connection to Arthur Conan Doyle had anything to do with this movie. Indeed the Holmes of this movie is less based on the books and short stories and more based on the pop culture representation of Holmes through the years. He has the iconic cap and pipe (a less preposterous pipe than the large bowled one often depicted in such films.) But it’s clearly not meant to be satirical. Holmes doesn’t use a magnifying glass or say “The game is afoot!” There has been an attempt made here to create a period-accurate representation of Sherlock Holmes, albeit within the restrictions of a made-for-TV movie with a clearly limited budget.

The story being told here is about Holmes and Watson being summoned to Whitechapel to uncover the truth behind a string of grisly murders that appear to have been perpetrated by a vampire. The victims (as we discover in a lengthy and somewhat clumsy expository narration with pantomime enactments of the crimes) have all been found with puncture marks on their necks. We are told a rambling story about how a group of monks while on mission in South America eradicated a number of vampire bats that they feared were causing a sickness in the locals. This is when they started to get picked off one by one – even after they had returned to England. There are a number of suspects of course. There’s the disgruntled scientist who was studying the bats when the monks came along and started killing them off. There are several monks who all seems to have some friction between them. There’s Spanish accented housekeeper and her son who came back from South America with the monks. Or, of course, it could be an actual vampire (a notion that Holmes scoffs at.)

There’s a definite formulaic paint-by-numbers feel to this movie. It has the supernatural premise. It has the variety of suspects. It has various bits of misdirection and further murders. It has a very Scooby-Doo bit at the end when Holmes literally unmasks the killer. And it has a denouement where Holmes explains to everybody how he solved the case. Everything about the movie has a very comfortable and familiar feeling of familiarity. Even so there are a couple things that I was startled by which raised the movie up a couple notches from being a wholly derivative and unnecessary work.

One aspect I quite liked was Matt Frewer’s depiction of Holmes. I’ve always liked Frewer (I was a huge fan of Max Hedroom back in the day – both the movie and the short lived series) and his angular, gaunt face is perfect for Holmes. He’s actually quite entertaining to watch in the role with his hauty airs and his clear mental superiority. A person’s favorite Holmes is like their favorite Bond – influenced by what era they grew up in and their first exposure to the character. Jeremy Brett will always be Holmes in my heart of hearts, but I have to admit that I really liked Frewer’s take on the character too. So, too, did the producers of this movie apparently, since this is the second of four Holmes movies he did with this writing and directing team. (The other three movies are all based on Doyle’s works much mroe directly – which makes this particular movie somewhat odd.)

Another odd thing about the way Holmes is portrayed here is that he’s very much a politically correct Holmes for the nineties. There’s an entire side plot about the doctor who was studying the bats that the monks destroyed. He’s Scotland Yard’s prime suspect, and, oh, yeah, he’s black. There’s a kind of undertone of racism to the whole film, and Holmes is depicted as the right-thinking man who doesn’t let the color of Dr. Chagas’ skin influence his logic. I appreciate that in a nineties made-for-TV movie this was a popular attitude for a character to have, and it sort of makes sense that a man dedicated to pure logic and deduction would react in just this way, but it feels strange in a Sherlock Holmes movie. My memories of Doyle’s original works are that the foreigners and outsiders were usually actually quite sinister. The natives from Africa or from Watson’s time in Afganistan, and not to forget the sinister Mormons from America. Doyle’s work was firmly rooted in the penny dreadfuls of the time and has a sensationalist and nationalist feel to it. It’s just odd to see his most iconic character behaving with such clearly modern sensibilities.

Not that I mind. This is Holmes as he should be – at his most noble and clever. He’s a distillation of the idea of Holmes and not necessarily a strictly accurate representation of the character from the stories. This movie was pleasantly innocuous. Not bad, but not particularly ambitious. It’s the sort of movie you could safely tune in to as you surf between channels and not feel you’ve missed anything crucial. I did appreciate that a couple of the clues Holmes used to unravel the case were actually evident for viewers to pick up on, which is not always the case with Sherlock Holmes – either in movie or written form. This is a comfortable and simple movie – not necessarily one O would have sought out to buy, but not one that irritated me either. I do think that after watching this I will seek out Matt Frewer’s other Holmes movies though because I think I would enjoy seeing him in the role some more.

Advertisements

May 3, 2011 - Posted by | daily reviews | , , ,

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: