![[icon ]](/pictures/favicon.png)
blenderdumbass . org
Mindlocking Trickery of Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes
👁 4
https://blenderdumbass.org/do_edit : 👁 1
https://blenderdumbass.org/ : 👁 1
![[avatar]](/pictures/user_upload/Troler/55NKGQKE7IRKMLHV.png)
by Troler
Free Software fundamentally misses the point. It fails on a practical, ideological, economic, and political level. Let’s examine precisely how (in a slightly different order for the purposes of presentation).
There exists a critical problem in detective stories. When the enjoyers of a mystery are presented with suspects there exist unfalsifiable assumptions and systematic uncertainty, which combine to prevent the reader from ever engaging in a fair puzzle-solving process. Given an unreliable narrator or the existence of metatextual clues, such as that involving events transpiring in the world outside that of the story, the viewer is at risk at falling to Talmudic thinking. Such a problem is most well known as the Late Queen Problem. In a way it arises in the Guy Ritchie's dilogy of Sherlock Holmes ↩ Reply
Pairing a mystery, where each clue matters with a director behind Revolver, where the symbolic meaning of the film is hidden unless the viewer has pen and paper, and knowledge of gematria, and Hebrew. As such, a detective movie, of Sherlock Holmes nonetheless, is quite an invigorating blend. ↩ Reply
The movie is not wholly objective, it shifts to the character's perspectives. The eye is guided by the focus of Sherlock Holmes, played by Robert Downey Jr.. The eccentric portrayal of the detective furnishes the movie with an authentic vigor. I seem to be unable to recall how Sherlock Holmes acted in the books, but whatever be the source material, the movie executed it flawlessly. It may be in part due to the blood of Robert Downey Jr.'s Lithuanian-Jewish grand grandfather. Considering the first film heavily involves symbolism of secret societies and Jewish mysticism. ↩ Reply
Tisn't my superstition as the role of Mark Strong as the occultist Lord Henry Blackwood, which combats with Robert Downey Jr. as the most memorable character. The flamboyant and cocky character, as seen in various mythical esotericist, from the staunch Heraclitus to the ever elusive Aleister Crowley. Finding particular allusions to mystics of the past may be frivolous. Although I am bent on that, since there just too many odd portrayals of Egyptian symbolism, to dismiss any external factors. ↩ Reply
All that is necessitated, as the film keeps throwing random details that come back far later. In a way making it feel like a Wes Anderson work, but that is more so than anything due to the genre of detective story. Still, the training the viewer to notice details has the effect of creating a more refined type of humor. Such as Sherlock Holmes refusal to travel by horses and rather by the far more conspicuous form of transformation of automobiles, the loud, barely moving carriages is only explained in the latter half of the film. That is only but a single instance of the implanted seeds throughout the entire film. ↩ Reply
Even without noticing them, the film still is quite a marvel to watch. No part thanks to the quite innate skill of the director and the cinematographer to sustain motion. Of course, Guy Ritchie is no Edgar Wright, but still, the understanding of framing, motion and general flow is quite well developed. As a consequence, the viewer is rarely confused where he is supposed to pay attention too. Further amplified by the fact it a detective movie. Big applauds to Philippe Rousselot for the management of the camera. ↩ Reply
The impeccable sounds composed by Hans Zimmer are not to be forgotten. They add to the general mood and flow of the film, as is to be expected. What else is to expected of the composer who worked on Michael Bay's Pearl Harbor, Christopher Nolan's Interstellar and to my knowledge, all Zack Snyder films in the past few decades. ↩ Reply
From the damp, dark and cold portrayal of 19th century London, to mind breaking subtext of the mysteries, Guy Ritchie's take on Sherlock Holmes is quite exquisite. Yet, for all its praise, the film's constant visual clues of some sort of Jewish mystery, some sort of secret Hebrew writings are a ruse. During the viewing of the movie, I had the chance to consult the owner of this site, @BlenderDumbass . Who was able to translate the various texts written in the esoteric texts, be able to decode the gematria in the tarot cards, just to reveal they meant nothing. Guy Ritchie, seems, to have on purpose set fake clues to make the non-Jewish or goy question whether there is a bigger mystery. When in reality it was just a ploy, all a ploy, to make them believe in something that wasn't there. ↩ Reply
In a way the movies do not suffer from the Late Queen Problem, since there is nothing to suspect, except our own intuition. ↩ Reply
Fin. ↩ Reply
Find this post on Mastodon
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/07/Valerian_and_the_City_of_a_Thousand_Planets.jpg)
![[thumbnail]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/Gone_in_sixty_seconds_1974_movie_poster.jpg/250px-Gone_in_sixty_seconds_1974_movie_poster.jpg)