Guy Ritchie has been hard at work on his new Sherlock Holmes film, starring Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law. He was recently ordered to refilm 5 weeks of the movie due to the scenes being “unrealistic,” and now there’s even more interesting news about the movie – Sherlock (RDJ) and his sidekick Watson (Jude Law) may be gay.
Super sleuth Sherlock Holmes is to be portrayed in a gay way in Guy Ritchie’s new flick.
The fictional him-vestigator is seen sharing a bed with his dear, dear, Dr Watson and also enjoying some man-to-man wrestling with his close chum.
Speaking about the film, in which he plays Sherlock, Robert Downey Jr said: “We’re two men who happen to be room-mates, wrestle a lot and share a bed. It’s badass.”
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary character is famous for donning his deerstalker hat, puffing on a pipe and solving mysteries with his trusted sidekick.
Jude Law. who plays Watson in the film, added: “Guy wanted to make this about the relationship between Watson and Holmes. They’re both mean and complicated.”
[From News of the World]
This is coming from News of the World, so you have to take the report with a grain of salt. But we’re also talking about Guy Ritchie here, who is known for taking things to unexpected levels. With Sean Penn winning the Best Actor award for his performance in Milk, and Brokeback Mountain winning best picture just a few years ago, there is a more mainstream place for homosexual relationships in movies.
I have to say, I love Robert Downey Jr.’s response to the allegations that his character is gay: that they’re “badass.” It seems to me that even if the characters do have a sexual relationship, Ritchie, Downey, and Law will make sure that it doesn’t come off as schtick. Most movies about Sherlock Holmes focus on Holmes’ internal demons, but rarely explore his relationships with other people on an intimate level. Whatever the movie turns out to be, it will prove to be something we haven’t seen before.
Here’s Guy Ritchie, Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. filming on the “Sherlock Holmes” set in Kent, England on November 30th. Images thanks to WENN.
Actually, Brokeback Mountain did not win Best Picture at the Oscars. It was expected to win, but Crash won instead, causing quite an upset.
If they do indicate a homosexual relationship then I find it disgraceful. Not because of the gay part, who gives a shit about that. But for some director to take liberties with something he didn’t write, to me, is disrespectful. Unless Sir Arthur Conan Doyle intended for there to be that nuance (and in reading and rereading his works over the years, I never gotten that indication), I think its rude to take that “artistic liberty”.
Sherlock and Watson were probably gay. theres are so many movies that have a gay under current to them that the majority of movie viewers dont pick up on it but when they do .. its hilarious watch Lord of the Rings for instance the love affiar is not between Aragon and the fairy queen its between Aragon and Elf played by Orlando Bloom.
Brokeback should have won. Crash was OK at best. especially compared with the master piece that is Brokeback-and I’m not talking just about the story-but the entire film and the way it was put together.
It wasn’t uncommon for roomates to share beds back then, and just for sleeping not for playtime – heh
Does anyone remember Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock Holmes? O pa-leeze.
We really have no idea how Doyle saw his Holmes and Watson, straight or gay.
Agree with Screw ‘Em and Joolzz.
This is artistic laziness.
Leave other people’s creations alone.
If you want to make characters gay, create your own gay characters.
This is just a failure of imagination.
It’ll probably have some serious homoerotic, close male relationship in it (in a House/Wilson-esque way), but full-on homosexuality? I highly doubt it.
And damn, the more I think about Crash winning over Brokeback Mountain, the more upset I am about the upset (har har, I’m so funny). It turns out I really hated that movie!
That guy in the foreground with the green hat is adorable.
Men routinely shared beds at that time, as did women. There was much more separation of the sexes, and a corressponding greater intimacy with same sex friends. I am pretty sure that Doyle did not intend for his two male leads to be perceived as gay; this sort of friendship and physical familiarity between male and male, or female and female friends were very common at the time. Nowadays this behavior would be perceived as gay, but not then.
The only possible explanation for why Guy Ritchie could have married and stayed married to Madonna is that HE is gay. She is only attractive to gay men.
Yea,well,there was probably alot more to it than just sharing a bed,back then. I mean,all relationships were in the closet-so who would know if it was socially accepted mores [friends or roomies sharing a bed],or ‘something more’? I love when cultures act as though they didn’t have ‘gayness’…whether today or in past times…duh. it existed.
On that note,it’s perfectly fine for Guy to fictionalize Doyle’s work a bit. ‘Based on’ is a common term in the film industry. To my knowledge,no book as ever been taken verbatim and put on the big screen. There are always ‘artistic liberties’ taken.
Let’s not be too precious,shall we?
Exploring the idea that the two may have been gay,and portraying this type of relationship at that time in england,is interesting in theory-and it may prove interesting on film.
Why is it that people seem so up in arms about the work of ‘famed writers’ or topics?
And why is it,especially,that people seem concerned about what the audience will take away from it?
Art is meant to arouse and inspire,among other things-arouse thinking. An observer is meant to think for him/herself;just as in reading a book,a film-goer is taking it in and making meaning of it that is individual,not universal.
People don’t give their fellow humans much credit in the thinking department.
Can’t way I disagree with the dismal state of intellect these days on the whole…BUT,I don’t believe that thinking for others [aka ‘censoring’] is the way to address said problem.
Okay,for irony’s sake: I meant ‘Can’t say’,not ‘way’….
Sharing a bed and wrestling was not “gay” back then, but normal male behavior.
There is a statue on my campus that shows one man tying gauze around another man’s foot while the other man leans against him. By all accounts, it looks gay as hell. But back then that was the height of masculinity; helping your fellow man.
So…even if Guy Ritchie puts them in a bed together, that wouldn’t indicate that they were sexually interested in each other.
Dear god, do you realize how many homoerotic fantasies fans are going to come up with between Jude and RDJ? Although I trust RDJ is going to do his damndest to make the whole pairing seem totally badass.
Kiki shut the hell up. Have you even read the canon?
Whoa abbydoom, a little defensive non?
Maybe Kiki’s totally right. One can interpret homo undercurrants to lots of films, LOTR and even Shawshank if you look. Gee whizz. Were you standing outside the Oscars waving a placard two nights ago or something?
Btw, how is saying someone might be gay in a film an “allegation”.
RDJ looks edible in that pic. Completely badass. Think I’ll wait to see the movie before making any judgements….
I personally think Downey was joking when he made that statement. Not that there’s anything wrong with portraying the guys as such, but if it wasn’t an overt part of the stories, then I don’t think it’s going to be overt here is all. Also, Irene Adler has been named his “love interest,” to whatever extent that entails, and Mary is Watson’s.
Oh, and love Jude as Watson!
Does anyone remember the Sherlock Holmes episodes that played on TV for awhile? I rewatched them recently and Holmes totally came off as gay.
I’ve actually heard from quite a few people that Holmes has always had some gay undertones, that they just never discussed it.
I may be totally insane, but I just always assumed he was. Haha
Considering that Watson married happily partway through the series, and that Holmes himself is as close to in love as he can be with “that woman” Irene Adler, I doubt that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle meant for these characters to be gay.
Wrestling was a manly sport at the time…which is really beside the point because Holmes was actually a boxer (which, in Victorian times, was bare-knuckle fighting).
As others have said, roommates and friends of the same sex sharing a bed was also common.
However, all that being said, should Guy Ritchie introduce a homoerotic aspect to the characters’ relationship, I would only object if it was done poorly. Written and acted well, I’d probably find it a fun/interesting interpretation.
the fact that this is coming from “News of the World” instead regular film websites says it all
News of the World is nothing more than a online tabloid. They’re basing their entire conclusion on the one quote from Downey, so it’s BS. Rachel McAdams isn’t in this for no reason.
Kiki- That’s exactly what I thought! Haha.
abbydoom- It’s a movie, you can interpret it however you want. I, personally, preferred to focus on the homoeroticism between Mortensen and Bloom instead of whatever Liv Tyler was doing. It was much more intriguing.
I completely agree with some of the above statements. To emphasize any gay undertones within the Sherlock Holmes and Watson friendship is completely unnecessary. And if my knowledge serves me correctly — I don’t remember them ever sleeping in the same bed — And I’ve read the entire Conan Doyle series twice. Also, within the original series, Holmes never comes across to me as gay….He seems more along the lines of being asexual. He never pursues women and even though he may seem close to Watson — More often than not, Holmes is portrayed as being more of a loner that enjoys being by himself. If guy in any way FUCKS UP the legend of Sherlock Holmes….He should be kicked out of Hollywood altogether. Besides, his movies suck anyways. And as a true Sherlock Holmes fan — I would be devastated to see him screw it up.
Quote “If they do indicate a homosexual relationship then I find it disgraceful. Not because of the gay part, who gives a shit about that. But for some director to take liberties with something he didn’t write, to me, is disrespectful. Unless Sir Arthur Conan Doyle intended for there to be that nuance (and in reading and rereading his works over the years, I never gotten that indication), I think its rude to take that “artistic liberty”.”
Total in agreement with you, if they leave it in. I know I will not see the movie.
i am a lifelong fan of sherlock holmes (since before ‘gayness’ somehow came in vogue and indispensible to political correctness) and i have never felt either character was homosexual. i also read a lot of books from that period and agree that before the advent of this western social acceptance that one cannot have any close relationship with one’s own sex that does not also have sexual connotations (i mean, get real! whose idea was this ridiculous notion anyway), it is entirely possible to form very close human-to-human friendships with someone your own sex, with high loyalty, camaraderie and fun, without being sexual in any way. guys have BFFs too, you know. it really is quite silly to read homosexuality just because people like each other. grow up. and don’t screw up sherlock holmes. he’s an opium addict, has serious deficiencies in social skills, and thinks all women are silly except one (by the way, misogyny is not the same as homosexuality – he does show interest in women, but only the ones that are not vapid and silly). there should be plenty of character flaws already to work with.
Well I for one think that it is very brave of Guy Ritchie to put this spin on the Holmes/Watson relationship. This will at least breath new life into a very old chestnut and open it up to a whole new generation. Holmes has been done to death and presented in almost every conceivable format you can think of (well maybe except Ice Skating…eew) What better way to get a whole new audience to appreaciate these tales. I know folks have been scoffing about the “liberties” being taken with the characters, but, HELLO! Excuse me..Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce “Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon” and “Sherlock Holmes in Washington” have Sherlock and John living in the 1940’s, driving automobiles and fighting the Nazis! So I think we better not use that argument, okay? I say better gay than away. I also read that Ritchie had pressure put on him to change the focus of the story to include a female love interest for Holmes in the form of Irene Adler. Talk about your liberties: the last thing that character ever wanted was another pretentious man in her life which is what motivated her character in the book to do what she did.
No one can know for sure if they were gay or not. If they were gay at all, they’d definitely be gay for one another. All that aside, Holmes and Watson did love each other very intensely. It’s said a few times in canon. They didn’t openly say, “I love you,” but it’s implied in the text. Two stories right off the top of my head that mention it are The Dying Detective and The Three Garridebs. It doesn’t mean they were IN love though. Truth be told, whatever the conditions of the relationship were, they were obsessed with each other. Watson blindly followed Holmes into any situation out of pure admiration, which Watson writes about repeatedly as well as mentioning always wanting Holmes’s approval. And Holmes is both possessive and protective of Watson. They had the most beautiful friendship ever and it doesn’t matter whether or not they were lovers. And it doesn’t matter to me if they put gay undertones into the movie as long as they stay true to the actual characters. Although I love both RDJ and Jude Law, I feel like they should have been switched if only because of appearance.
On a side note to Kirana: Sherlock Holmes was not an opium addicted. He took morphine and cocaine, but only when he didn’t have a case to distract him.
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=458369320607&ref=mf&v=info
If you have read the books and Stories of Sherlock Holmes . You will know that Watson was very happily Married and went back to 221b to stay with his old friend Holmes after his wife died
Who cares? Really. Just like the movie for the quality of the movie…yeesh.
This is the decadence of Hollywood.
I always thought of Holmes being a bi-romantic asexual. But, that is besides the point.
Personally, I think putting a gay spin on it would be a really ground breaking thing. Just think about it: A mainstream action movie with gay characters, where being gay isn’t the center of the movie. I think that would be monumental.
As mentioned in other comments, both Holmes and Watson have relationships with women in this movie and in Doyle’s original canon. I agree that close same-sex friendships and sharing a bed were common and not necessarily gay for the Victorian time period and that society has changed a lot. But this was also a time where being gay could mean imprisonment–so one would have to keep a very low profile.