Mr. Holmes and the Human Being

Jon Seidman

I'm not one to read reviews of movies beforehand, as I find my tastes are not those of the general public. Sometimes this works to my disadvantage, as it did with the recent release, Mr. Holmes. I had the general impression that the critics had viewed it favorably, but had no idea about the plot except for the notion that it dealt with his last case. Given that, I expected a mystery story along the lines of the Jeremy Britt television episodes, but with better acting, since Ian McKellen was portraying Holmes. I prayed that it was not another Guy Richie fiasco.

Therefore I was quite surprised to find the mystery was not the focus of this story. Instead, it provided a fascinating study of the Holmes character, exploring his dotage. Why make this a Holmes story instead of creating a new character, since it wasn't a mystery story? The answer is simple; the groundwork had already been done in establishing the character, a man famous for being analytical, cold, and a bit of a misanthrope. Therefore, the director and writer were free to focus on the process of evolving him to a new state of mind, something done with great subtlety.

McKellen's acting was sublime, and the surrounding cast, especially his child friend, were excellent. While the film progressed rather slowly at the beginning, by the end it was most satisfying. I won't spoil the film with details, but I highly recommend this if you like films that explore character, and can put aside the ghosts of Basil Rathbone, Britt, Robert Downey Jr. (Yech!) and that Cummerbund fellow.

Travelling Salesman

Photo by Antonia Hayes

You have $25,000, what do you do? A fine vacation? Remodel your home? Go to college for two semesters? If you're a filmmaker, you make a science-fiction feature-length film. That's what Director Timothy Lanzone did with the intellectual diatribe Travelling Salesman. The film's subject is math; the title comes from the mathematical challenge of finding the most efficient route for a salesman visiting a number of cities, which is surprisingly complex.
I can't say it's the most entertaining of films; for the most part, five white male characters sit in a plain room arguing the ethical use of a mathematical breakthrough that would allow hackers free reign in once-secure sites. Oppenheimer and the atomic bomb serves as the key analogy.
Not having math chops, I found the conversation a bit confusing at times, but what I did understand seemed belabored. I can watch a stage play that is simply dialogue, but it must evolve. This one didn't, at least not to my satisfaction.
Still, it's professionalism is quite an accomplishment, for $25K. If you're the type of viewer who enjoys C-Span, you might enjoy this film too.