Mad Genius
Thanks so much for your comment Axbish about the posting Clive Brook and Robert Downey Jr., Real Men do Holmes. The premise of a man dedicating his life to the study, worship and amplification of another man, brings up all kinds of obvious questions. The first one being that Christianity or any ism for that matter is based on latent homosexuality. Me thinks thou “ism” protest to much. Ah….self loathing. How powerful art thou.
I’m not saying that men cannot have a close non sexual bond. Or a close sexual bond. That’s not the issue. The acknowledgment of affection between two people is the issue. The manipulation and denial of affection is where we get into an icky category. The mixing of a paternal relationship with a sexual one, the mixing of a teaching relationship with a paternal relationship and a sexual one, well that’s all kinds of craziness. Where the hyjinx really ensue is when you mix a figure of power (government leader, cult leader, political movement leader, ballet teacher) with a teaching relationship, replacing a paternal or maternal role and having sex with or manipulating the sexual lives of their subjects. Then you get all kinds of lawyers involved or human trafficking or multiple wives or just an all American Promise Ring.
So, I give you “Mad Genius”.

Now, if you have never been subjected to someone’s molding than this might not be the film for you. But speaking as someone who has been subjected to multiple molders and been the object of multiple moldings, this looks like a ton of fun.
(Honestly, I’m so oblivious, I could be being molded right now and not even know it).

Sorry, I digress, what we are having fun with is the Watsonesque dedication which may or may not come from repressed homosexual desire.

Here’s a great telling quote from the film:
Vladimar Ivan Tsarakov: I will create my own being: that boy! That boy will be my counterpart, he shall be what I should have been… I will mold him, I will pour into him my genius, my soul. In him all my dreams, all my ambitions will be fulfilled — the greatest dancer of all time! The film and play are a reference to or a loosely based depiction of the relationship between the great ballet dancer Nijinsky his mentor Sergei Diaghilev.
The film is a follow up or sequel to “Svengali” which depicts a romantic controlling relationship between a man and a woman. What is interesting about Mad Genius is that they explore that same story between two men. Holmes and Watson, Svengali and Triby (played by Marian Marsh who played Nana in “Mad Genius”), Karimsky and Vladimar Ivan Tsarakov these are all great relationships which illustrate the dedication of life study, worship and amplification of a friend or mentor.
So, Axbish, watch “Mad Genius” and let’s have some fun with what could have happened to Watson and Holmes if Holmes was harnessed in his ability and Watson was a lovely young ballet dancer.

Categories: Mad Genius Tags: Mad Genius, Promise Ring, Sherlock Holmes
