wytchcroft (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wytchcroft) wrote2009-01-08 03:19 pm
wytchcroft) wrote2009-01-08 03:19 pm
Entry tags:
For Alek Morse - some very rough notes: Florizel, Holmes etc
This is an example of some of the notes i have been making in regard to Holmes/Florizel etc. i don't know if they are of any interest. The specific notes on productions; e.g. actors, script, filming etc are being piled through now! And i'll see what is worth posting.
And so – the choice – what to examine (first) – either literature; as a trilogy The Suicide Club, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Club of Queers Trades. Or to look at the productions – comparing the Soviet Florizel to Holmes.
In both there is a flamboyance of character (in literature this is less so, Holmes is eccentric rather than flamboyant) and Chesterton fuses the two. But it is the moral/philosophical that is shared by these books –
an investigation into society and the individual –
where the main character functions most as a guide. We follow Florizel as he penetrates the Suicide Club –
we follow Holmes as he unravels mysteries in the fog of London and we follow Chesterton’s narrator as he leads through the Club of Queer Trades.
The final mystery always – who is our guide?
Holmes is an enigma – in some ways so is Florizel and the mystery at the heart of queer Trades is the Detective himself (Basil Grant).
This is Borges country – the mystery reveals a mystery which reveals US.
Chesterton’s Trades has this famous quote:
“And in the chaos and complexity of those perpendicular streets anything may dwell or happen, and it is in one of them, I believe, that the inquirer may find the offices of the Club of Queer Trades. It may be thought at the first glance that the name would attract and startle the passer-by, but nothing attracts or startles in these dim immense hives.”
This sums up neatly the almost dream like exploration beyond the surface of society that all three authors share.
The investigation into us. Again – where to look: Holmes as a moral compass – Livanov definitely, but he is quixotic too – his judgements independent of Society – Florizel, whilst embodying the qualities and codes of a Victorian Gentleman – a noble man even – is nonetheless an outsider to the society seen in the stories, and too the reader.
Soviet productions of the late seventies and so on - the individual in the body of the state. The body politic – Zheglov the necessary anti-body, so too Holmes. But one is an individual critical of the state and its bureaucracy, represented by Lestrade. Zheglov IS the state as Lestrade – but is this just a first glance? Zheglov bends and breaks rule as he deems necessary. Just as Holmes sees fit (for example) to let the Professor (in The Devil's Foot) go. Florizel forces members of the dread club to leave go into exile – only actually dispatching it’s head. As Holmes does with Moriarty.
All of these Detectives serve to clean the system to some degree – all their external investigations are really an INTERNAL investigation. This process is found later in characters such as Le Carre’s George Smiley. The particulars of the case matter less than the ultimate moral sensibility of the guide. Smiley and Zheglov are down at heel – yet in their odd way are noble men, in the real sense, aligned with Florizel and Holmes.
A sort of cultural conservative – which can still be at odds with any given Conservative politics (note small c vs capital C). During much heated criticism of ‘The Heritage Picture’ in the 1980s Granada’s Holmes was rarely mentioned. Holmes slips the grasp of any willing to use him in such an obvious fashion. But looking at the handsomely mounted productions of the Soviet Holmes or Florizel it is clear that ideals of wealth, class, history are welcomed. This is true of BBC productions Pemarric and such. But it operates in a different way to say Merchant Ivory or the numerous Austen adaptations of the 80s onwards.
........................
i hope this fragment gives some idea of the thoughts in my head - of course this is not an organised piece of writing but there is a lot more on these themes (especially re Soviet productions - the individual, the state, the body) that i have written in much the same rambling fashion. Then of course there are the neater strands for each specific production - Holmes, Florizel, Meeting Place etc. The dialogue thread for Meeting Place has been steadily building and a lot of my notes/thoughts have been absorbed by it, since there is discussion on other productions in there too. Anyway - this is the page that i shall update and add to in regards to these subjects.
And so – the choice – what to examine (first) – either literature; as a trilogy The Suicide Club, The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, The Club of Queers Trades. Or to look at the productions – comparing the Soviet Florizel to Holmes.
In both there is a flamboyance of character (in literature this is less so, Holmes is eccentric rather than flamboyant) and Chesterton fuses the two. But it is the moral/philosophical that is shared by these books –
an investigation into society and the individual –
where the main character functions most as a guide. We follow Florizel as he penetrates the Suicide Club –
we follow Holmes as he unravels mysteries in the fog of London and we follow Chesterton’s narrator as he leads through the Club of Queer Trades.
The final mystery always – who is our guide?
Holmes is an enigma – in some ways so is Florizel and the mystery at the heart of queer Trades is the Detective himself (Basil Grant).
This is Borges country – the mystery reveals a mystery which reveals US.
Chesterton’s Trades has this famous quote:
“And in the chaos and complexity of those perpendicular streets anything may dwell or happen, and it is in one of them, I believe, that the inquirer may find the offices of the Club of Queer Trades. It may be thought at the first glance that the name would attract and startle the passer-by, but nothing attracts or startles in these dim immense hives.”
This sums up neatly the almost dream like exploration beyond the surface of society that all three authors share.
The investigation into us. Again – where to look: Holmes as a moral compass – Livanov definitely, but he is quixotic too – his judgements independent of Society – Florizel, whilst embodying the qualities and codes of a Victorian Gentleman – a noble man even – is nonetheless an outsider to the society seen in the stories, and too the reader.
Soviet productions of the late seventies and so on - the individual in the body of the state. The body politic – Zheglov the necessary anti-body, so too Holmes. But one is an individual critical of the state and its bureaucracy, represented by Lestrade. Zheglov IS the state as Lestrade – but is this just a first glance? Zheglov bends and breaks rule as he deems necessary. Just as Holmes sees fit (for example) to let the Professor (in The Devil's Foot) go. Florizel forces members of the dread club to leave go into exile – only actually dispatching it’s head. As Holmes does with Moriarty.
All of these Detectives serve to clean the system to some degree – all their external investigations are really an INTERNAL investigation. This process is found later in characters such as Le Carre’s George Smiley. The particulars of the case matter less than the ultimate moral sensibility of the guide. Smiley and Zheglov are down at heel – yet in their odd way are noble men, in the real sense, aligned with Florizel and Holmes.
A sort of cultural conservative – which can still be at odds with any given Conservative politics (note small c vs capital C). During much heated criticism of ‘The Heritage Picture’ in the 1980s Granada’s Holmes was rarely mentioned. Holmes slips the grasp of any willing to use him in such an obvious fashion. But looking at the handsomely mounted productions of the Soviet Holmes or Florizel it is clear that ideals of wealth, class, history are welcomed. This is true of BBC productions Pemarric and such. But it operates in a different way to say Merchant Ivory or the numerous Austen adaptations of the 80s onwards.
........................
i hope this fragment gives some idea of the thoughts in my head - of course this is not an organised piece of writing but there is a lot more on these themes (especially re Soviet productions - the individual, the state, the body) that i have written in much the same rambling fashion. Then of course there are the neater strands for each specific production - Holmes, Florizel, Meeting Place etc. The dialogue thread for Meeting Place has been steadily building and a lot of my notes/thoughts have been absorbed by it, since there is discussion on other productions in there too. Anyway - this is the page that i shall update and add to in regards to these subjects.