Thursday, December 15, 2011
Remaking Archetypes
Whoohoo! Today the new Sherlock Holmes opens and I’m so looking forward to this second movie. Hoping for lots of explosions, smart-ass comments, some fisticuffs…and phenomenal costumes. And music.
Now, I do think of Sherlock Holmes as an archetype. The second fictional consulting detective. (Yes, the second…the first was written by Edgar Allen Poe. But Arthur Conan Doyle caught fire with Holmes.) Homes, the man who has no use for women, understands body language like no one else, reads clues and extrapolates details that seem invisible to the normal eye, until explained. Well-mannered when needed, rude when not. (House really is remarkably like him, but with much less charm IMHO.)
There have been how many cinematic adaptations of the character? Wikipedia lists 75 actors having played the character in 211 films. And I bet that is out of date. I have to agree with Wiki that Jeremy Brett played the best of any I’ve ever seen. The most true to the books and Gods, that man can act. I even liked the two different actors who played his Watson.
I can’t tell you how many novels/short stories I’ve read. All the original Doyle’s and probably several dozen written by others. From putting Holmes in space to modern settings…writers love to toy with this character.
So do actors. Robert Downey, Jr. and Guy Ritchie are doing something bizarre and captivating…and borrowing heavily from suppositions about Holmes. And darn it, the movies are just plain old fun!
Archetypes…literary characters that are reinvented by the adaptors. Holmes is one of my favorites. (I also enjoy how Tarzan has been revisioned over and over again. And the Three Musketeers…another of my fav. Oh, and Robin Hood!)
Now, I’m not a massive Darcy fan. Though sheer ignorance…please, stop throwing rum bottles at me! I haven’t read the book or seen enough of the movies to have an opinion, but I’m sure you all do… If not…what of Holmes, Tarzan, Darcy…what of Dracula, Frankenstein? Ebenezer Scrooge? Have you a favorite? Have you characters where the changes have infuriated you? (I have always felt that way about several of the Holmes…btw.)
Have you a character you can imagine redone? That you would like to see redone? Can anyone think of a female archetype redone? (Other than Miss Marple?) (Agatha Christie if you aren’t familiar… Interesting how it’s often mystery characters that are redone again and again…) Though there are several adaptions of Emma.
Okay, there is Peter Pan… And gods, how often has Johnny done this? Willy Wonka, Sweeny Todd, Ichabod Crane and soon…Barnabas Collins, (who could be said to be Dracula…) And who is Jack Sparrow a recreation of? Errol Flynn’s Captain Blood?
Okay, he’s probably an original!
You see, it isn’t just a new actor…it’s the new story, the new vision of the character… It’s fan fiction, taken to the professional level!
Even the Kraken has been imagined in many ways. From the stop motion photography of the great Ray Harryhausen, to the latest Clash of the Immortals, to Pirates of the Caribbean, to my fine fella… And wow, how zombies have changed!Can you think of any other archetype characters I’ve missed?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Books by the Crew
46 comments:
Oh, and I can't wait to see this movie!!!
I had to look up archetype to make sure I answered correctly. And I'm still not sure how to answer. LOL! But I LOVE RDJ as Holmes. When I was 8 or 9, someone gave my sister a box of books. They were condensed classics for young readers. She could have cared less but I dove in and couldn't get enough. Hound Of The Baskervilles was the first book I pulled out and I was immediately hooked on mystery. Wizard Of Oz was also in there and if you've never read that book, you should. But maybe drop some acid first. I'm pretty sure the author did before he wrote it.
I'm not entirely certain archetype was the absolute perfect accurate word here to use, but I liked it.
Yeah, the Hound of the Baskervilles was a great story and I think quite scandelous for it's day.
I enjoyed the first RDJ movie (I've loved him for a long time and will watch pretty much everything he's in). I thought it was a great re-imagining of the timeframe and the underlying story. I also am fascinated by people's fascination with this character, and how it works for so many different generations. I would love to create a character that becomes an archetype for someone else!
I think the archetype here would be the "genius with deep internal issues" and Holmes is the character example. House is another, which is why they're so similar. They're based on the same archetype. Holmes is more the prototype.
Ha - I'm always slightly confused by this myself!
If I have it correctly, then an archetype I love for stories is the intelligent but bumbling hero/heroine, the scholarly person called to adventure....
I'm thinking of Evy in the Mummy, Noah Wylie's character in The Librarian movies, anything Mr. Bean, The Pink Panther detective, heck - even Tom Hanks' character in The Da Vinci Code sort of.
You even see it with some comic books and super heros - The Green Hornet comes to mind.
Some people call it the Everyman Hero archetype but I don't think that encompasses the whole "bumbling" part I love about these characters.
I know there are some I'm forgetting so I'll keep thinking on it.
I think I get what you're saying. You love Holmes because he's the Twisted Archetype. The Archetype of his character is probably The Professor--and Holmes has a lot of professor qualities, I'd guess, but he's also got some Chief and Swashbuckler tendencies to him too. *LOL* He's no run of the mill know-it-all Professor--he's taken to the Next Level. So it makes him less a caricature and wholly a well-rounded character, flawed, fascinating, and memorable.
I'm not sure what Willy Wonka is...he's so weird. I don't get him. Irresponsible, perhaps The Charmer (though I don't think Willie Wonka is charming, I find him creepy)--but that's probably what he is. A Twisted Charmer. And Jack Sparrow is a Twisted Charmer-Swashbuckler. I would say Icabod is a Professor (at least how Depp played him); and Sweeney Todd is kinda a lost soul, in a serial killer sort of way. *LOL* In love with his wife, his life stolen from him--and when he returns, he just loses it. Yeah, I think he's a lost soul gone wrong.
I'm guessing Darcy might not be interesting enough because he's a Chief and he'll only ever be a Chief. Though...at the end, he shows his Warrior (romantic) side by riding to Elizabeth's rescue by finding her sister, solving a sticky situation, and getting Bingley to propose to her sister. Darcy does come with a Twist. Is it quirky weird like all the characters you listed? NO. But he does have a dark twisty layer just the same.
We'll see what Janga says. I bet Janga will save Darcy. *LOL*
Scape - Your comment makes me think of Cary Grant's character in Bringing Up Baby. Or Bridgit Jones. Maybe the lead in the Shopaholic books too?
I love Darcy. He's a product of his time and status, yet he's sensitive and shy, which makes him seem all the more haughty. He feels deeply but is never supposed to show it. There is definitely some dark, twisty stuff in that man.
Love all of those Bo'Sun!
Yeah, I wasn't sure archetype worked, but they are characters that invoke a concrete idea of who they are... Which is why it's always so fascinating to see how they are re-invented by different generations...
I'm with you Donna...part of me would love to create a character that is flexible enough with the core story to be taken elsewhere and still maintain who they are. Which is one of the keys to Holmes. We all know it's Holmes...not matter where he is, what era and who portrays him...
Scape - Yeah, the abscent minded professor! I can see that! While Holmes, if he is the professor prototype, is never abscent.
Loved Carry Grant in Bringing Up Baby...and the one with the two nutty aunts...
So, has Darcy been re-invented? Taken to other stories and remained Darcy, not just the archetype of his character?
(I'm so wishing I'd come up with a better word right about now...)
Darcy has been recreated countless times by the looks of the Austen published fanfic. But I've never read it to know how much he's changed. Our own Enid sent him into outer space. That's definitely putting a twist on things. LOL!
I think there are just characters who become part of our lives and get re-interpreted. Many of Shakespeare's stories qualify. Look how many different ways Hamlet has been betrayed? I find the interpretations that put him in modern times but use the original writings very interesting.
Bones could be a modern, female interpretation of Holmes. Without the drugs and violin. LOL!
I'm beginning to think Holmes really is unique... Because whenever they re-create him, it's still him...we all know it's still him. They still call him Holmes!
I've seen it with Tarzan...from big screen to little screen... But is there no other character...wait! Dracula...he's been tossed from time to time and toyed with... I mean George Hamilton's version was certainly a departure from Bella Lugosi...
So is Dr. Spock merely a Sherlock Holmes like character?
Good question... I'd say Holmes was the prototype for that character. As was Data...
I don't think I realized how unique the character was, that he wasn't just used as a model for other detectives, but he has pretty much transcended time and remained himself...
So do you want archetypes or conitinuous reinterpretations of particular characters? Because you are confusing the hell out of me. LOL!
Bo'sun...if I knew the answer to that I wouldn't be confused or amazed myself.
I KNEW archetype wasn't the right word to use...writers are so aware of nuances...
I suppose the question is... Is Holmes his own archetype? I mean, the character has certainly taken on the onus of being reinterpreted/reinvented/adapted more than just about any other named character I can think of...
Hey, my brain ran away last week, so I think I'm doing pretty good!
Lots of characters get reinvented and reinterpreted. Robin Hood, as you mention. King Arthur. Darcy. Anything Shakespeare or Austen. Even Dickens and Twain. Though Twain less so. Not sure those characters would work as well without that time and setting.
If a writer can take a character out of their original element and still make him/her work, then you know you have an amazing character. Which is why Holmes works. His intellect, quirks, and even his flaws work no matter where or when he is. Darcy has been brought into the present and even sent into the future and still works.
There's always a jungle and a reader fascination with the "different" character, so Tarzan can be repeated over and over again. Superheroes seem to fit the bill. Superman, Spiderman, Batman. They've all been twisted and changed but endure regardless.
True, King Arthur, and Robin Hood.
I'm not sure I'd count Twain, though there have been a few adaptations of his "Connecticut Yankee' character... Dickens...I got to think about that.
I've read a fair amount of reinterpretations of Peter Pan, and a few movies...
Even the Muppets have had a go at Dickens. And then there's Santa Claus. LOL!
True, Santa Claus most definately fits.
I did cite Ebezer Scrooge as a character that has traveled far in interpretations...
Though Twain less so. Not sure those characters would work as well without that time and setting.
Maybe. Tom Sawyer is the charmer type--able to get other people to do his work. Hell, I can find that character at my workplace!
Huck Finn and Jim--race relations aren't what they were then (thank heavens), but you can find situations/people who others are prejudiced against to twist into. Someone who is gay, or even having the Jim character be an Arabic Muslim in a small protestant town--I mean, good luck not getting any prejudice behavior there...
We shouldn't forget about some of the negative female ones too... like the Shrew and The Wronged Woman...
Then there are stereotype characters (which I get confused with archetypes since they are so similar to me) like The Dumb Blonde.
See!? I have two blogs here...one on archetypes and one on specific characters... Not surprising, as my brain has been off somewhere partying while I've been attempting to navigate the world without it...
I wonder where Tom would fit into the strict literary archetype? Adolescent Rebellion? Huck was more the realist.
Yeah, Scape, I'm not a fan of the addled auntie or the way most grandmothers are portrayed. I do like seeing the Shrew re-imagined...
http://www.tamicowden.com/heroes.htm
I still think Tom is a charmer. I think Huck was the bad boy/lost soul by default, wasn't he? Wasn't he from the wrong side of the tracks and stuff?
Tom was a bad boy but he was a bad boy lite, that's why I think he was a charmer. Like the rich kid troublemaker who knows he always has a home to go to. He creates the mischief but gets to point fingers at everyone else.
Huck was the sidekick and took all the blame. He's like a friend and a bad boy rolled into one, but the bad boy is the part that stands out. He has no family, he has no protectors, he's on his own. He's street smart. He's angry. He's the bad boy.
Yeah, but neither of them ever really did anything 'bad'. I mean Huck sorta stole Jim, but not really. They were mishcievious, but bad?
Though I do see the Charmer for Tom.
And now...I must walk Bonnie and get to Starbucks. I'm outta coffee at home...and have been managing for several hours on my own... But two great reviews for The Chameleon Goggles have rolled in, so I'm flying high on those!
http://www.theromancereviews.com/viewbooksreview.php?bookid=4289
And
http://thepenmuse.net/?p=3996
:-) ;-) ;-)
The bad boy doesn't have to be bad, per se, you can be labeled bad...the poor kid from the wrong side of the tracks. And running away from home--that's considered bad back in the day.
But I'm willing to classify Huck as a lost soul if that's a better fit.
Amazing reviews!!! Make me want to cry with happiness on your behalf. LOL!
I was supposed to read The Adventures of Huckelberry Finn Jr year in HS, but then my mom had my little brother and I never did finish the book. That's the extent of my Twain reading, so afraid I'm out of this one.
Congrats on the good reviews, Chance!
An archetype is, by definition, an original pattern from which copies are made. So, archetypes are prototypes. The archetype carries a common meaning in a culture, or if you’re a Jungian, arises from the collective unconscious. We could all blog for a year on archetypal characters and not cover them all—the star-crossed lovers, the peasant who is a king, the Don Juan, the wise prophet, the earth mother, etc., but I find exemplification more interesting. Thus, I prefer a discussion of how Puss-in-Boots or the Weasley twins are tricksters to a general discussion of the trickster figure. I would say that the clever detective is the archetype and Holmes is an example, arguably the most famous and in the Doyle’s work at least, the quintessential Victorian clever detective.
Acting is an interpretive art, and so I would argue that any character we see on stage or in film is the interpretation of a particular actor—or perhaps the result of a collaboration between actor and director, depending upon how much direction is given. Even given the identical script, the current Holmes would be different if the character were portrayed by an actor other than Robert Downey, Jr. The actor’s interpretation we prefer probably reveals deep psychological truths about us. LOL I find Downey’s Holmes entertaining, but I’m with Chance on Jeremy Brett. He’s much closer to my idea of Doyle’s Holmes.
I love Darcy. He’s an example of the self-controlled hero. I understand the appeal of Matthew Macfadyen’s Darcy with his combination of arrogance, awkwardness, and vulnerability, but Colin Firth is the definitive Darcy for me. I see him as the introvert more comfortable with the carefully reasoned, painstakingly constructed letter than with the spontaneity and more emotional speech. I can see Colin Firth’s Darcy writing the letter on which the rest of the novel turns.
Dickens used archetypes and his interpretations of them have been used by many others, including a lot of romance writers.
I’m stopping now. I could write a treatise on Darcy or Dickens, but Janga as weak example of the professor archetype is shutting up. :)
Thanks, Janga! You clarified a lot of it for me. I know the terms I was using weren't spot on, but I just sailed on...my normal behavior.
I do feel Brett was the absolute perfection of Doyle's detective. But Downey is just...a brilliant adaptation.
A blog on tricksters would be so loverlee. And Jack Sparrow is a great portrayal of the mythological trickster.
Thanks, Bo'sun! Those reviews made my day!
No, no, no! Write more Janga! Write more!!
Yeah, she almost made me want to see the Darcy movies...which ones are they?
*ducking thrown rum bottles
LOL! I read this earlier and then I was like, these are all guys. I need to think of the women archetypes/character prototypes that correspond. Then my mind blanked. I hit up the coffee pot and then promptly tumbled into my day.
So I'm back now to see if I can add to the conversation.
I think I can't think of as many women ones because until recently I feel like there aren't as many strong female leading characters (that are any good) in classical literature. Can anyone else think of any? Help? Am I suffering from holiday overload?
Archetypes I'd think the Shrew, the Wounded Woman, the Maiden, Mother, Whore stuff...
But characters? Yeah, I tried to think of some and came up with Miss Marple as one who has been interpreted several times on the big and little screens...but nothing else came to my mind. Very frustrating to realize this!
It's like how I was chatting with a friend on Wednesday about the new Speilburg movie coming out... Tin Tin. Another boy adventure. It's like Speilburg is allergic to girl adventures...
Well...what about Nancy Drew? Sorta done a fair amount of time. Auntie Mame?
Speilburg is a guy. So he likes boy adventures. Makes sense to me. The only female I can think of is Cleopatra, and she's more a historical figure who has been turned into a fictional one. Laura Croft is kick ass, but is she based on any classical characters? Afraid video game lore is not my area of expertise.
All the females I can think of are Historical figures. And mostly queens! Pocahontas. What archetype is Scarlett? Spoiled, strong-willed, and unsinkable. Then you'd throw the Unsinkable Molly Brown in with her, but again, based on a real person.
Congratulations on those awesome reviews Chance! Wow. I don't think I'd ever come down off that cloud. :)
I'm looking forward to the new Sherlock Holmes movie. I've loved RDJ since playing Charlie Chaplin. A different sort of archetype. LOL Is it my imagination or does he have a new pregnant wife with every premier? LOL
I watched the Fugative recently and I think Harrison Ford had a certain archetype quality to him that I'd always expect to see.
Interesting topic!
I did think of Laura Croft, but gods, I'd hate for her to the lone female example out there. I know Mina from Dracula has been reinterpreted several times...
But we have to remember that women weren't really encouraged to write women who actually did anything other than be wifes and mothers for a long, long time... I wonder if other cultures are different?
Melissa...gods, I think I've loved RDJ since the dumb movie with Rodney Dangerfield going back to college...
I figure the Avengers movie is going to be hilarious because who the hell can stand up to RDJ when his mouth gets going? Especially with the arrogance of Tony Stark?
What about the Warrior Woman as archetype? Then there are all sorts of examples from Athena to the Amazons to Xena to Buffy.
LOL! I read this earlier and then I was like, these are all guys
My thoughts exactly, apart from Miss Marple. *grin*
I would add:
1)The female war leader, Boadicea,Joan of Arc from history, Maggie Thatcher from recent times, and Captain Janeway of the starship Enterprise for the future.
2) The woman making good against all the odds in a man's world. For example Melanie Griffith in the film 'Working Girl'
Loads of others but my head is spinning! LOL
"Strong Female Leads" are usually killed or made crazy at the end of stories...mostly because men are writing these stories and don't like women being more powerful or as powerful as the men in the room, perhaps. *shrugs* I don't know.
It was a mere 150 years ago they were still thinking women's brains were too delicate to read books or study too hard. Let alone the 1000s of years of other literature that we have to pull from.
If the man is writing, if there is a strong woman, he seems to punish her or make her contemptible. Like Lady Macbeth. Or a whore, like Cleopatra.
Wasn't there a girl-written play about women who stop the men from making war by refusing to have sex with them? That's about as close to girl power as you were going to get in the olden days. A classic proof that as long as I have one of these *points to glittery hooha* I can get anything else I want. Which is probably why men in general don't write favorably of us. They probably don't think it's fair. *LOL*
On the whole, I think women doing "man roles" get killed off a lot because it's unnatural for a woman to be like a man.
I think we all love Maggie Thatcher. :) She is a powerful woman.
I think the Queen is too, though. I mean, I know the Royals really don't get how the other half lives and I'm glad Diana did what she did with the boys so they're not going about empty-handed, expecting friends to pick up the tab all the time, but I think the Queen is very dignified and intelligent. She's a great survivor.
Boadicea is one I thought of earlier but was too lazy to look up the spelling so didn't type it. LOL! If it's wrong now, it's Q's fault!
Forgot about Joan of Arc. That's a good one. And I like Janga's mention of the Amazons.
It is nice that the women are, for the most part, historically drawn. They aren't fictional guys. Like Darcy.
*ducks more rum bottles
It's the fictional women characters that are hard to find!
Though Xena works for me! I think she was loosely based on Boadicea...but who knows?
Hellion's right, women seen as strong in mythology either use their Hoohah (Aphroditi - I know, I butchered the spelling), are mannish despite their Hoohah (Athena), have come to ruin becaues of the Hoohah (Hera was a bitch because her husband was a man-whore, or a god-whore I suppose) ...
Post a Comment