Enola Holmes: an Elementary Swindle
This is going to be a brief review (ramble), and perhaps if I liked it more, I would have written more about it (and cleaned up what I wrote). But it’s not too bad.
The biggest eyesore is the explicit feminist ideology. Men are made out to be dumber in general, and the softer qualities are promoted (but then also hypocritically shat on, when comparing with “even stronger” female characters — and they are stronger because the movie demands it). Even from the first shot, where the father is humorously shown to leave the family…by dying! The patriarchy (or at least the filmmaker’s idea of it) is mocked, and Mycroft embodies it, so naturally it makes sense that he’s going to get the shorter end of the stick. But perhaps a genius move by the writers, as most of this suits the timeline (minus the inversion of values to denote which is ‘better’, like the softness aspect), and a lot of male sentiments were actually conservative, especially during the late-Victorian era (the setting of the movie).
It also seems like they were quite proud to show that the damsel ‘physically’ saved the damoiseau, in a desperate role-reversal instead of finding a way to demonstrate it through more unique feminine ways (instead of “you’re a man when I tell you you’re a man”, look to Beauty and the Beast for a well executed idea that deals with gender more psychologically, not merely politically) to execute the idea. Of course, they had to include the karate sequence, for the emotionally powerful empowerment babble that made me cry my heart out. One thing that I find amusing about most of these attempts is that when you champion these strong feminine values and make the protagonist a mouthpiece for the same, you end up accomplishing the opposite: instead of striving for individuality and trying to break away from the masculine influence, it ends up being such that they try to show that they have done so, but merely end up inverting the masculine values (of strength and competitive aggression/zeal) to show that the feminine has finally liberated itself from it — ha! That indicates that you’re still under the influence of what a woman is with regards to men, and not what is a woman is unto herself— as an individual! Not merely by imitation or inversion! Come back later when you will have figured this out, oh dear feminists!
But I digress. Back to the analysis.
Given the disappointing male characters who’ve been molded to promote feminine values (the soft, wimpy boy, who plays with flowers, the actor probably chosen for his feminine face), they didn’t dare to touch Sherlock Holmes and distort him too much according to their propaganda. And rightly so. Though I actually love what they’ve done with him. Obedience towards big brother Mycroft makes it so that he doesn’t try to directly stand up for Enola, , and instead it leaks sparingly. An understanding version though, which shows maturity, and improves upon the character while still retaining the iconic Holmesian traits (Henry Cavill has played him beautifully, and there was real depth in his performance). This is a more balanced approach to our beloved Sherlock Holmes, with regards to combining the male and female values, and this struck a chord with me.
I liked the movie overall, it was a pleasant watch. Perhaps I am nitpicking too much (admittedly, I had trouble freely immersing myself, with more reins handed over to the analytical component than the innocent, curious viewer). Also had its fun moments and memorable sequences (besides the moments with Cavill and Enola, one of which was the walk with the old lady, but I won’t break it down here). Predictable, and not a very compelling main plot (and has several post-facto gimmicks to provide the ‘clues’), as it is meant to supplant an ideological narrative than exist solely as an exciting mystery with a human component (where is the human in today’s film industry after all?), but then, even most of the original Holmes stories were more about the human aspect than the crimes or the mystery themselves (as Watson pointed out to the reader, there were few stories with actual crimes). The renegade aspect of the feminine propaganda was also ultimately balanced by the writers, when the protagonist (in a character development act) accepts the dangers of her mother’s pursuits (and thus the value of a mother’s love compared to a feminist’s pursuit), Mycroft’s concerns, and Sherlock’s perspective on the same. That alone was enough to somewhat elevate this movie, even if for a bit before the narrative turns its head back towards its intended goal.
All in all, do not expect this to be a story about Sherlock Holmes (thankfully, I didn’t), and if you have 2 hours to burn watching a movie about feminist ideology, a subpar case, some memorable interactions and Henry Cavill’s nuanced Holmes, then by all means, go ahead.
Rating: 1.5/4
