Enola Sparks Blend Between Colonization and Feminism (Enola Holmes 3 review)
Enola is facing her greatest challenge yet. Marriage! And that is ultimately compounded by the disappearance of her more famous sibling, Sherlock Holmes. But boy, does the script immediately try to get to its point: not to spend time in Victorian London, but in Malta. The film has a considerably shorter runtime than the previous films, which I immediately found suspicious, and I later learned that they changed directors, which seemed to answer some of the pacing and aesthetic choices. It is safe to say that this is the least superior of the franchise.
It does seem to want to recapture the same intention they attempted with the second film, with Enola being a fictional figure who seemed to be a silent forger at a notable yet subtle point in history. With the previous film focusing on Sarah Chapman's plot to save the expendable matchstick girls, this film seems to be focused on the state of colonization of the European island country and the prejudice conformed by the British. I found this particularly interesting in the way they portrayed the British Empire's role in its colonization, and they did not shy away from Enola's perspective, as well as the point of view that the family, which has a dark part in it, is also the one she is marrying into.
Despite the sentiment intended here, some parts of this historical inclusion in the plot came off a little blindsiding, particularly in their choice of the antagonist's gender and ethnicity. Without giving too much away, the idea of having the antagonist as a sympathetic villain did not work here, given their execution of villainy; they seemed almost ignorant, considering the themes presented. What was surprising was how they also used the further exploration of this iteration's Doctor Watson played Himesh Patel, to portray these sentiments from an South Asian point of view, which ultimately was affective which means that writer Jack Thorne had the right idea, but was ultimately failed to rectify what he thought was a different take on an iconic adversary would ultimately be the one knack that seemed to have not belonged in this plot that he could have been saved for another sequel.
Whilst exploring the heavy themes there, Brown's performance as the titular character sparked a timely discussion on feminism. Enola is very much at the height of her career, or so it claims in the first 10 minutes of the film, as a successful detective, even if we do not see her working on her own case but rather with Sherlock. But that is immediately overshadowed by the fact that she is now to be married to Tewksbury, which has created a conflict of interest, especially given the stakes for her career. This brings about external pressure from the expectations placed on a woman in the 1800's, as well as internal pressure from what she was taught as a child: to be an independent woman who does not play by the rules. That has been very much what Enola has been about throughout the franchise, but it does remind us that despite her skills in deduction, crime-solving, and hand-to-hand combat, she is still more emotionally inclined compared to her more narcissistic brothers, which has been portrayed, amongst the naysayers around her, as her biggest weakness.
There is a specific difference in the way Brown is playing the role, to better deliver the arc and message that had been teed up since the original film, bringing it full circle. To some extent, there are parts of the film where this performance choice can make it seem as if Brown is not playing the same character. This is a struggle I think audiences can find in the character, and it can come off as a flaw that makes it seem like the script does not understand Enola's point. But as aforementioned, I do think it was intentional, considering what goes hand in hand with current society's misconceptions of feminism. That Enola, yes, is independent, capable, and ahead of her time, and with that in mind, she has also fallen in love and wants a future with this man, a man who also wants her to be all the things that make her who she is.
Of course, she will react and pursue the case in a certain way, given that it involves her fiancé's family. But this is also where I think there might be another mistake in the film. The main mystery of this sequel once again seems to involve the questionable Tewksbury family, something they had already explored in the first film. I now consider the second the best in the franchise, as it most likely solidified Jack Thorne's writing and established Enola as an iconic detective in her own right, while this film seems to take a step backward to having Enola only figure out mysteries that are caught in the crossfire of her love interest's family. It might be an excuse to keep Partridge's character relevant to the franchise, but it undermines the relevance of the main character's intentions and the franchise's overall intentions.
So, by blending the horrors of colonization and internal conflict of understanding feminism, Enola Holmes 3 has the right ingredients to make those efforts into a great sequel. Certain choices to make those themes shine brighter ultimately make the timely messages and themes a tad redundant. But that does not change the fact that the sequel is still enjoyable and worth catching on Netflix.
Comments