Mr Holmes - film review

In  Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Conan Doyle created such an entrancing character that the scope for exploring his potential and discussing his adventures is almost endless. Less than a fortnight ago, at Bouchercon, I found myself chatting about him with Leslie Klinger, a leading American Sherlockian, whose annotated editions of the stories are quite superb. Over the years, we've had all kinds of takes on Sherlock, and the 2014 film Mr Holmes presents him as a twinkly old buffer whose mind is starting to fade, but who has the chance to delve back into the past as well as coping with a challenge of the present.

The film is based on a book published in 2005 by American author Mitch Cullen called  A Slight Trick of the Mind, which I haven't read. It's a very well-made film, and the cast includes several excellent actors in relatively small parts. So we have Roger Allam (Morse's dad in Endeavour) as Holmes' doctor, Phil Davis (playing a cop, not for the first time,but in a rather less menacing way than usual) and Frances de la Tour (who in my mind will always be Miss Jones in that very funny of-its-time sitcom Rising Damp). And the eternally versatile John Sessions plays Mycroft...

There are three main plot strands. One concerns Holmes' last case,in which he is consulted by a husband concerned about his wife. There's another set in Japan. And third and most important, we see Holmes in his dotage, still keeping bees, and bonding with the likeable son of his housekeeper. There's some poignancy in the story, but its impact is lessened by the fact the story moves along rather slowly, and I did find that my attention wandered.

Holmes is played by Ian McKellen with genial aplomb, but I felt that an actor such as John Hurt would have given an edgier performance. As it is, the film meanders elegantly along without, for me, ever becoming compelling.. It's unusual enough to be worth watching, but I'm afraid it won't be featuring on my list of the best twenty Sherlock Holmes films .

,

Trap for Cinderella - 2013 film review

Trap for Cinderella, Iain Softley's recent adaptation of a novel written by Sebastien Japrisot sixty years earlier is one of the best psychological thrillers I've seen in years. On release, it met with indifferent reviews (often from film critics who simply don't care for plot twists, it would seem), but if you like classy, convoluted plotting in a movie, and you're willing to suspend disbelief somewhat - a requirement not confined to mysteries, of course - then give this one a go. It's gripping, and very elegantly done.

A fire in a French mansion leaves one young woman dead, and another terribly disfigured. The survivor undergoes extensive reconstructive surgery, but suffers from amnesia. She's told that her name is Mickey, and that she is due shortly to inherit a fortune, on her 21st birthday. Soon she meets an old boyfriend, and discovers a diary written by her dead friend, Do. As she reads the diary, her memory starts to return...

This is a complex story centring upon the intimate friendship between Mickey and Do. They were childhood friends, but a crisis separated them for years. When they meet again, they become very close, but it soon becomes apparent that Do's devotion to Mickey has its unhealthy side. What happened in the past, and can Mickey trust those who claim to have her best interests at heart.

Mickey is played by the brilliant Tuppence Middleton, who is rapidly become one of the actors I most enjoy watching. Do is equally well played by Alexandra Roach, while the cast also includes Aneurin Barnard and Frances De La Tour. There are a couple of plot elements which one can quibble about - concerning Do's psychology, and the content of the crucial will - but overall, the story moves so briskly and so entertainingly that these didn't bother me much. Japrisot is a very entertaining writer, and I think he'd have been well satisfied with this adaptation. (The book was filmed in  France back n the 60s, incidentally, and Jean Anouilh was one of the scriptwriters.)

Accuracny and Authenticity (and The History Boys)

The History Boys, a successful film of Alan Bennett's acclaimed play, is not a work of crime fiction. But I want to say a few words about it today, because I enjoyed it hugely, and also because I think Bennett, a skilled craftsman, demonstrates something about writing that authors, including me, can learn from.

The film tells the story of a group of eight boys at a single sex grammar school in north Yorkshire in 1983. They have done very well in their A Level exams, and as a result they stay on for an extra term the following year, in order to sit the entrance examinations for Oxford and Cambridge universities. The reason that the story is set in the early 80s, I suspect, is that it wouldn't fit very easily with the modern British educational system. There are fewer single sex and fewer grammar schools now (perhaps especially in the north of England) than there were, and the Oxford entrance exam no longer exists.

The story deals very entertainingly, and in the end very poignantly, with the relationship between the lads and their teachers, two of whom are gay. The cast is excellent, above all the teachers, who are played by three fine actors, the late (and marvellous) Richard Griffiths, Frances de la Tour, and Stephen Campbell Moore. Clive Merrison is funny as the ambitious and annoying head teacher, and the script has plenty of great lines in Bennett's customary witty, mannered style.

The story "feels" authentic, which is the sign of high quality writing. And Bennett was a product of a northern state school who went to Oxford, although via a complicated route (he was originally accepted for Cambridge during the ear of national service, but changed his mind.) So he knows very well how such a background and education can be beneficial  in terms of social mobility.

But how accurate is The History Boys as a depiction of the world it creates? Well, I was a member of a small "third year Sixth form" group in a northern single sex grammar school just a few years before the events of The History Boys, and there's no doubt that Bennett uses a huge amount of artistic licence, not least because as far as I recall there was very little teaching, just a few hours per week - the point being that you couldn't really "teach" the Oxbridge entrance exams. As for the idea of a crammed curriculum (bizarrely even including P.E.), forget it.

So if my experience is typical, then The History Boys isn't accurate. But it doesn't matter, in my opinion. Authenticity isn't the same as precise accuracy, and for me, authenticity is what really counts in a work of fiction. I don't deny that careless inaccuracy about factual details can be damaging in a work of fiction, but really I think the problem only arises if the effect of the inaccuracy is to compromise that all-important sense of authenticity.

The late Robert Barnard used to tell a witty story about how he was praised for accuracy in his portrayal of backstage life in an opera company - when he had absolutely no knowledge of what that life was like in reality. The point was that because he loved opera, he could imagine a fictional world which may have differed greatly from the reality, but which nevertheless carried conviction. Similarly, the best legal mysteries create a believable world, even if legal life in reality is very different. I rather think (and hope!) the same is true when it comes to portraying police work. Authenticity is very, very important, but it's not the same as accuracy. But one thing I did learn at school and university is that there is room for all sorts of opinions, so I'll be very glad of comments from anyone who either agrees - or has reasons to disagree.