Book: Sherlock Holmes stories/novels by Arthur Conan Doyle, specifically A Study in Scarlet
Gap between first publication and film release: 123 years--1887 to 2010 (1st Sherlock Holmes movie appeared in 1900)
Closeness to original characters: 97% (Kate)
Closeness to original story: 60% (Kate)
Mike says this is a great show! Modern reinventions are always a bit of a risk. People have the classic idea stuck in their head, and often don't like seeing the thing they love get twisted to somebody else's vision. American television, especially lately, has a long string of failed reinventions and adaptations. In my long and varied career of TV watching, I can think of at least four other Sherlock Holmes pilots I've seen over the years that went kaput. House is probably the closest to a Sherlock Holmes series that has really ever taken off, but that was merely in spirit. And then there were the Next Generation episodes--I don't care what people say, Brett Spiner would make a GREAT Holmes.
While American TV can't seem to pull off the reinvention, the BBC seems to have it down to an art. From the wonderful revitalized Dr. Who to Hyde, a re-imagining of the classic, the BBC really seems to be on a roll. Sherlock has been on my watch list for awhile, but upon finally watching it, I was thrilled to see that it continues BBC's trend.
The success of Sherlock, I think, lies in the successful translation of the characters. Not only are Sherlock and Watson there and very recognizable, but there are in fact very believable as modern people. The modern twists to their characters are slight, yet bring with them a measure of believability that makes the entire series work.
The chemistry (and I do hesitate to use that word, but it's really what it is) between the two actors is also wonderful. That Holmes needs Watson is fully apparent, and I do enjoy that Watson very actively serves a purpose in this show. He is competent, resourceful, and courageous, Something you don't see in most adaptations.
I've said it for awhile, and I hold to it: American TV really needs to start following the BBC way of doing things--when you make a series a collection of mini-series, you get a refined product that is much more cohesive and polished.
Anyway, perhaps the only minor flaw I find in the show is the direction they have taken Moriarty. While I get it--if Sherlock is a functional sociopath, then Moriarty is less so--I was still slightly disappointed that he seemed so... tame. But, admittedly, I'm not sure what I would have done different. I was, however, extremely pleased that Moriarty was not Watson. That would have been one reinvention to far.
Anyway, a great show, a wonderful adaptation in which the characters really survive the transfer and make the series work as a result.
P.S. I also LOVE that Watson has a blog! As many adaptations take Watson's perspective, the one thing that was always missing was who wrote the novels. A blog completes the loop!
Kate says I adore this series! Which is kind of odd.
For one thing, the series relies (at least partially) on a conspiracy (and I dislike conspiracy plots). For another, the scripts play homage to the original stories/novels but in no way try to retell them (unlike the masterly 1980s BBC series with Jeremy Brett). Lastly, they are movies, not one-hour dramas (my preferred watching). So, on paper, I shouldn't be a fan of Sherlock!
But I have currently seen the first movie "A Study in Pink" four or five times, and I'll probably see it another four or five times until Season 2 comes out!
During my first watch-through, I was disappointed by the lack of close adherence to the original short stories. I was hoping to see classic Holmes' stories translated into contemporary life. The writers of Sherlock are serious Sherlockians who KNOW their Holmes (their commentary for the movies is quite engaging), and their scripts make constant references to the stories and novels, but they don't try to follow any particular plot line ("A Study in Pink" comes the closest).
Despite the lack of adherence to Doyle's plots, the writers not only capture the feel of Doyle's texts, they are absolutely true to the characters!
Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes is right on. He combines House with Jeremy Brett's Holmes. (He is less confrontational for the sake of confrontation than House and slightly more extroverted than Brett's interpretation.) He has the height and the sweeping coat.
Cumberbatch also brings a layer to Holmes that appears in the books but is rarely highlighted. Despite his self-characterization as a "high-functioning sociopath," Cumberbatch's Sherlock is not indifferent to how others view him. He desires approval/respect/support. He is embarrassed when Watson considers 221B Baker Street a mess (due to Sherlock's scattered stuff). He is highly embarrassed when he has to admit to Watson that he once took drugs. He asks Watson to help him because he needs someone on his side at crime scenes. He is charmed (and surprised) when Watson is frankly impressed by his genius.
Martin Freeman as Watson is the show's strength. I hate shows and stories/novels that portray Watson as a doofus. The whole point of Watson is not that he is stupid but that Holmes is so brilliant, Watson looks clueless in comparison. Watson is us.
Martin Freeman's Watson is not only a reasonably intelligent guy whose reasonable intelligence highlights Holmes' genius, he is interesting in his own right. I love the revelation (so counter to accepted wisdom) that what Watson craves isn't peace but a new war. ("And I said dangerous, and here you are.")
This craving for danger gives him remarkable sangfroid in the face of Sherlock's unpredictability. My favorite example of this sangfroid, however, happens in the non-dangerous restaurant. Sherlock is trying, somewhat defensively, to explain that he doesn't have or want an intimate relationship; Watson interrupts him, saying, "It's all fine." Sherlock looks startled and responds with stammered thanks.
I also happen to love Watson's jacket! This may seem odd, but that jacket is a great representation of Watson's personality: sturdy, non-glamorous with a slight 19th century military look and the barest hint of classiness in the shiny velvet strips.
Freeman's Watson has a somewhat different presence than original Watson (original Watson is much more "everyman"). However, all the information/characterizations given to Freeman's Watson can be found in the books/stories (he even fought in the same country--Afghanistan--if not the same war).
The biggest difference between the books/stories and Sherlock is Lestrade who is far more laid-back and far less weaselly in the 2010 television series than in the books/stories. I prefer 2010 Lestrade whose dry humor and indifference to ego make him a nice counter to Holmes. I get a big kick out of the pilot's opening scenes where Lestrade--bored and fed-up--answers the reporter's question, "How do people keep themselves safe?" with the dry response, "Don't commit suicide."
And, of course, there is the marvelous Mark Gatiss (also one of the show's creators and writers) as Mycroft. First watch-through, I didn't guess he was Mycroft (for obvious reasons), but I don't think Mark Gatiss is a cheat. For one thing, he has that great voice, not to mention the stellar 1920s Lord Peter Wimsey vibe, and, of course, there are all those jokes about diets.
Oh, and I love the show's music.
I can't wait until Season 2! Unfortunately--*sigh*--it may be awhile.
2 comments:
*Spoilers.*
I agree that Moriarty is something of a let-down. As the big bad in the closet, once he emerges from the closet, he is creepy but not terribly Machiavellian. And although I like the final scene of the last movie (Watson and Sherlock's willingness to sacrifice for each other), it never ceases to bother me that Sherlock didn't throw the bomb vest into the pool. It's "not wanting to die from a bomb blast" 101. So he doesn't do it because he thinks Moriarty will come back??? It's just way too convenient.
I'm hoping that the next series will drop the underlying BIG BAD VILLAIN idea and focus on individual villains/stories. They are doing the Hound!
I also agree about the use of the blog. In many ways, the newspaper serialization of the Holmes' stories was more like blogging than anything else in the publishing industry today. I love how people start asking Sherlock questions about stuff Watson has posted: "Do you really not know the earth goes around the sun?"
The casting and the setup was perfect, but the introduction of Moriarty--and a Moriarty of such inexplicable means and motives--so early in the series thoroughly wrecked it for me.
What Card says about Red John on The Mentalist applies here: "He was made too powerful, with tentacles reaching everywhere, so that we began to wonder why he didn't just kill everybody and become king."
Like Card, if he doesn't stay dead, I'll stop watching, "because I don't tune in to watch the same repulsive villain week after week. I tune in to watch intriguing and enjoyable heroes" dispose of the bad guys.
The problem seems to comes down to a dearth of writers capable of creating truly smart villains, so they instead create sociopathic and really lucky ones. They turn them into demigods, and that's surprisingly dull.
This is a persistent problem with superhero series. Kate points out that Agatha Christie's criminals are "simple and believable." It's not the criminal or the crime that's interesting, but how the hero solves it.
Post a Comment