by Dennis Polifroni
It all comes down to preference.
When a tried and true property takes on an over-haul, it’s natural for purists to bitch and buck at anything that doesn’t follow the rules by the book. Sherlock Holmes purists are no different from those that have seen new incarnations of old favorites. Sometimes the overhaul works (as with Barry Sonnenfeld’s ADDAM’S FAMILY movies) and some just never seem to catch on (as with the current guises this new slew of films has decided to paint onto Batman and Superman). Yet, even with the naysayers ranting, there also comes a slew of viewers that jump at the offerings of something new, something different.
Whatever the case may be, there will be naysayers against Mark Gattis and Steven Moffat’s updated take on Arthur Conan Doyle’s beloved sleuth, and the world he created around him. Gone are the horses and carriages that toted the super detective and his assistant, the ever watchful Dr. Watson (a wonderfully toned down turn by comedian, Martin Freeman), from crime-scene to crime-scene. Gone is the double billed hat that illustrations of Holmes, and every filmic incarnation of the character since, has seen him sport. The time and place is no longer Victorian-age England. The time and place is England, NOW!
(Martin Freeman as Dr. John Watson)
Although I like new things and new interpretations (I’m a big fan of the 007 reboot starring Daniel Craig), I’m not gonna talk about SHERLOCK like it was some show that shook the earth and changed the medium forever on. I”m not even going to say it’s one of the most important shows of this current “Golden Era” of TV. I won’t, because I can’t. It’s just NOT that kind of show.
However, SHERLOCK is, for lack of a better way of saying it, just pure FUN. It’s taking a tried and true property and turning it on its ears. The series brings Holmes and his friends into the 21st Century because, well, wouldn’t it be really INTERESTING to see how a brain like Holmes’ would adapt to the modern world as we know it? The texts of Conan Doyle’s books still, for the most part, remain. Holmes is still encountering the HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, chasing his arch-enemy Moriarty, and still driving poor Mrs. Hudson, his landlady, crazy. What is refreshing about the update is that “gee-whizz” feeling we get when we find Holmes using text messaging to alert the press that poor Inspector LeStrade is way off course in his deductive thinking, or seeing Moriarty go from a diabolical doctor to a psychopathic cyber-terrorist interested only in watching the world burn. A lot of this has to do with the modern technology and advancements that weren’t around when the first film adaptations of Conan Doyle’s work first screened, and it’s the brilliance of Gattis and Moffat to know that another time-worn, traditional interpretation of their idol (both are ENORMOUS fans of Conan Doyle) would only produce yawns. How could they hope to present Sherlock Holmes in an excitingly new and breathtaking way? As you looked at the past, only the future would do. Since the first publications of Conan Doyle’s stories, the character of Sherlock Holmes has seen stage interpretations, radio plays, dozens of movie adaptations, and, with the Jeremy Brett starring TV series from the BBC, the DEFINITIVE television interpretation of the TIME WORN CODE on how to present Sherlock. The only way Gattis and Moffat COULD go was forward in time.
Personally, I think the series starring Brett (in my mind, he WAS Sherlock Holmes as described in the books) will forever be the last word on the CLASSIC representation of the famed detective (though, sentiment still has me giddy when I think of the adventures played out by Basil Rathbone on the big screen from the 30’s and 40’s). But, you gotta give Gattis and Moffat credit for reinvigorating the character and his chums with a kind of frenetic excitement that rarely bubbles to the surface with ANY of the latest incarnations (I shudder every time I see Robert Downey Jr., as Holmes, whenever TBS or HBO are running Guy Ritchie’s water-logged, 2009, big-screen “re-invention”). There is a love for Conan Doyle that is obvious on SHERLOCK. You can see and feel it in the way the show runners write the characters. They’re deep and human and they have background stories that are rife with detail. Dr. Watson is recently returned from the fighting in Afghanistan and saw no shortage of the carnage that was raging in 2010 (he suffers from Post-Traumatic-Stress-Disorder on the show). Mrs. Hudson has a few skeletons in her own closet that only her beloved “Sherrrrrrr-lock” could help rectify (and would never be mentioned in an older, filmic version). The back stories help magnify the real-ness of the people and the place, help us believe that the characters Conan Doyle dreamt up are transcending their time and place.
(Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes)
With all this, though, the show is even more of a love letter to the character of Holmes and the person playing him. In a whirlwind of talking, finger-pointing and frenetic energy, Benedict Cumberbatch is what I’d always imagined Holmes COULD be. Jeremy Brett had a stoic charm that was the very essence of the Victorian era Holmes, and I’ll never fault his performance an iota. However, Cumberbatch is Holmes as I would imagine him THINKING. The man never sits still. His mouth never stops and you can here him verbalizing, under his breath and at lightning speed, his thoughts and his theories as if he’d bust at the seams if he didn’t get them out. Cumberbatch plays Holmes like a man whose hair is on fire and that he’ll burn to a cinder if he doesn’t put himself in extreme motion to allow the air rushing beside him to do its work. You can FEEL him thinking (the verbalizations of his thinking come so fast that I’d taken to putting on the English subtitles so I can soak it all in), and that thinking is what excites us, for his performance is like he’s taking us by the hand, winking our way, and asking us to take a journey of deductive, intellectual adventure with him. It’s a star making turn by Cumberbatch, and Gattis and Moffat knew what they had when they hired him on.
He’s the future of Sherlock Holmes. He’s the new generation’s Sherlock Holmes.
SHERLOCK
(2010-? DVD/Blu-Ray)
p Sue Vertue, Rebecca Eaton, Mark Gatiss, Steven Moffat d Paul McGuigan, Euros Lyn created by Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss w Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss, Steve Thompson m David Arnold, Michael Price
Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock Holmes), Martin Freeman (Dr John Watson), Mark Gatiss (Mycroft Holmes), Una Stubbs (Mrs Hudson), Andrew Scott (Jim Moriarty), Rupert Graves (Chf.Insp.Lestrade), Lara Pulver (Irene Adler), Zoe Telford, Phil Davis, Louise Brealey, John Sessions, Russell Tovey, Amber Elizabeth, Douglas Wilmer
I think the primary mistake the BBC Sherlock series made was bringing in Moriarty too early. It left them with the nearly impossible task up coming up with villains even better than him in the future.
I agree and disagree with this sentiment, Paul.
I agree with it in that it did cause Gattis and Moffat to scramble to find a new villain worthy of Holmes attention. I disagree because we all wanted Moriarty to appear and wreck his special brand of havoc to up the stakes of the game for Sherlock.
It’s a Catch-22 if there ever was one and, quite honestly, most of the villains he was chasing prior to Moriarty’s appearance were never worthy of the sleuth’s brow-raise.
Holmes was quite vocal in his agreement with you, judging by how often he proclaimed his clients’ problems boring.
Great essay and I understand what you are saying here, for me the first two “seasons” I enjoyed, moving on from there Holmes behavior began to get on my nerves, much of the pace was too fast and I had no idea what was going which only had me lost and to lose interest in the whole affair.
I didn’t have quite that problem, Jeff. Though, I ado agree that the first two “seasons” were crackerjack, while the rest of the series just kind of interestingly idled.
Good one Dennis. From the books to the movies and tv series they spawned-I enjoy almost all incarnations. I’m a big fan of Benedict and everyone involved w/ this show. Nice job.
Yup, Stevie, I’m a fan of the show, too. Though my love for it is more of a combination of the modern twists Gattis and Moffat give the stories and characters to make them fresh again, and because Cumberbatch is the Sherlock Holmes I always wished there would be. I think Brett gives the DEFINITIVE, classic interpretation but, Cumberbatch is the version I always saw in my mind when I read the books.
An excellent essay — many thanks! — and after the first series or maybe the first 1.5 series I’d have agreed wholeheartedly with everything you said. Since then, however, I feel the show has rather lost its way (and certainly its fidelity to the spirit of Doyle’s version) by becoming focused more on the detective’s hangups than on the detective solving mysteries. That can sometimes make for interesting storylines, but at the same time it seems a bit masturbatory.
Even so, I’m looking forward to the new series, you bet.
I’m looking forward to the new season, too!
Gattis and Moffat have scored more times than they have fouled and, even with it’s mis-fires, the show is still miles ahead of most other series.
Although I like new things and new interpretations (I’m a big fan of the 007 reboot starring Daniel Craig), I’m not gonna talk about SHERLOCK like it was some show that shook the earth and changed the medium forever on.
Precisely Dennis. I feel the same way and believe it has lost momentum. Yet, as you pose in this utterly splendid and concise review there is something to be said for the Holmes and Watson personas as superbly essayed by Cumberbatch and Brett. There can never be a point of exhaustion for these famed characters and a modern interpretation that expands certain character traits is always a point of intense curiosity. I will always be a Rathbone/.Bruce guy, having been raised on that iconic pair, but the culture would be stagnant to hold to those personifications, and SHERLOCK is quite the auspicious and visceral show. Let’s hope they get it back on track!
Yes, Sam, it has lost some steam. However, I give credit where it’s due and praise Gattis and Moffat for not repeating what has already gone before. That they were able to make Holmes interesting for yet another generation of fans is, in and of itself, a commendable accomplishment.
Very fine review Dennis. Cumberbatch is terrific as Holmes, and therein lies the prime appeal. Hoping the show’s magic is rekindled.
Yup, Frank, Cumberbatch is the main ingredient. With him there, even the series mis-steps aren’t that glaring.
Great write-up Dennis. I may be missing something and have to give it another go. I only wwatched the premier show.
As a diehard Rathbone fan, for me ‘The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes’ for me is the greatest piece ever done on the Holmes character – perhaps because Billy Wilder had that intellectual fire in him that’s in the DNA of the Great Detective and made a Holmes in his own image. And I think Robert Stephens and Colin Blakely are a match for Rathbone/Bruce. Then there is Brett, who in the earlier seasons was splendid but halfway through the run his ill health was manifest.
Cumberbatch is a superb actor but, for me, Gattis and Moffat have never done anything that’s registered as deep and rich. But then I’ve always hated the new Dr. Who, finding it glib and empty and only watched episodes recommended by Allan. Some writers and creators leave me cold, just don’t connect with my sensibilities.
Again, I think I may be missing something and have to give it another go.
bobby,
I’d give it another go. I think the thing here is perceptions. We ALL have perceptions about things we are deeply familiar with, and red alerts that put guards up on us when those familiar things are tampered with, in either good or bad ways.
I’m not a fan of Dr. WHO, and I find it as glib and empty as you do. But, I honestly feel there’s a frenetic reinvigoration that Gattis and Moffat have smeared Holmes with for this series and, suddenly, something I was ready to put away, feeling it was done justice, came roaring back to life.
I’m not saying it works 100% of the time but, it’s crafty enough to make it seem fresh again and, in the hands of an actor as supremely gifted as Cumberbatch, completely engaging and fascinating.
I love Rathbone and Brett, think they are the final word on the classic interpretation of the Holmes character. Yet, Benedict Cumberbatch brings a firey energy to the character that, I feel, no other actor has done prior and was always the one quality of the character, as written, that I felt was sorely lacking in the TV and film renditions prior to SHERLOCK.
I also think the show is one of the rare FUN shows on TV that has more smarts than most shows dealing in FUN ever attempt.
Dennis, you might enjoy this appreciation by Mark Gatiss,
Wonderful stuff, Bobby! Thanks so much!!!!
A mention must go up, since we’ve included so many others in the above discussion, to Peter Cushing in the ’59 Baskervilles. I love his angular, bird-like face calculating with a sort of focused need for the info meeting the quiet, smug disdain for the purveyor of that info. I think Cumberbatch catches that quality too, while marrying it to a more believable version of the frenetic engine Downey Jr tried to pull off. Downey just doesn’t seem automatically “smart” in the way Holmes should be – though he does come off as smart the way Tony Stark should be. I’m with the others above who say the first 2 seasons are primo, while the rest seem to just float there. Still, I look forward to every new one with the same gusto. The characters are drawn well enough to survive even the mediocre plots around them.
Right there with ya, Robert!!!! I LOVED Cushing’s interpretation of Holmes. I’m also a big fan of Christopher Plummer’s turn as Holme’s in MURDER BY DECREE.