The first is the BBC series Sherlock a modern retelling of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. For a longtime reader and Holmes enthusiast the recent resurgence in interest in Doyle's works is spectacular. The three most popular efforts have been Guy Ritchie's films starring Robert Downey Jr. in the titular role with Jude Law as Doctor Watson, a CBS series title Elementary with Jonny Lee Miller as Holmes and Lucy Liu as Dr. Joan Watson, and of course the BBC's effort, with Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman as Watson. some good, some bad, and some terrific.
I have only seen one episode of Elementary, but I can say with some certainty that it is entertaining, but ventures too far from Doyle's original works. With different names it could be any other crime drama. I am sure some will disagree, but I believe that Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker Street in London, nowhere else.
Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows must struggle the least of the three series to retain Doyle's Victorian setting, because of course it is set in Victorian Britain. They are two terrific films. Mystery films are always the best when each piece of evidence is shown on screen, even if the details escape the entranced viewer. Ritchie does not disappoint in this aspect, making the films more rewarding each time.
The series I have set out to review, for lack of a better word, is Sherlock. The ninety minute run time of each episode may seem lengthy for a television series, but the amount of detail, flexibility, and suspense that it provides is superb. It also allows each episode to stand alone, although each episode benefits from having seen each prior episode.
The most difficult piece of writing a modern Holmes series is incorporating technology and finding modern day equivalents for Holmes' habits. The struggle with cigarette addiction was the perfect replacement for opium addiction; in one scene Holmes rolls up his sleeve to reveal a multitude of nicotine patches. The character retains his habit of playing the violin, but his detachment from human contact and apparent psychopathy is played up much more than in previous Holmes adaptations. Technologically speaking, cell phones play a large part in the series (with a little product placement here and there, just for fun I'm sure), and Holmes is often seen in the lab, using the latest forensic technologies to solve crimes. Rather than Doctor Watson writing his account of Holmes on paper, it is converted to a blog, both popularizing Holmes' exploits and bringing in new cases. The way technology is brought in is unobtrusive, and does not distract from the story.
Doctor Watson is an incredibly difficult role to play, for any actor, because of his purpose in Doyle's works. He exists solely for the purpose of transmitting to the reader what Holmes is thinking. In comparison with Jude Law's interpretation of a tough wingman for Holmes, Martin Freeman is shown as a much more caring and intellectual type, probably the smartest of the Watson's of years past, while maintaining the steely resolve of a military doctor (he is a veteran of Afghanistan, rather than India, fitting in with the modern interpretation). He is also a crack shot. Rather than having a story with two heroes, Watson is the hero and Holmes the antihero. Freeman excels in protraying this role, as he did in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, because he is so much like the average viewer: smart, caring, and compassionate.
I know I have said little of Cumberbatch as Holmes, but there is really little to say. He is much more intense than other actors, who play Holmes as a much more laid back character, but he has excellent presence, and works well with Freeman. However his absence would not destroy the series.
Sherlock is an excellent series, and I highly recommend it to anyone who loves Doyle's works or the characters he developed.
I have only seen one episode of Elementary, but I can say with some certainty that it is entertaining, but ventures too far from Doyle's original works. With different names it could be any other crime drama. I am sure some will disagree, but I believe that Sherlock Holmes lives on Baker Street in London, nowhere else.
Sherlock Holmes and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows must struggle the least of the three series to retain Doyle's Victorian setting, because of course it is set in Victorian Britain. They are two terrific films. Mystery films are always the best when each piece of evidence is shown on screen, even if the details escape the entranced viewer. Ritchie does not disappoint in this aspect, making the films more rewarding each time.
The series I have set out to review, for lack of a better word, is Sherlock. The ninety minute run time of each episode may seem lengthy for a television series, but the amount of detail, flexibility, and suspense that it provides is superb. It also allows each episode to stand alone, although each episode benefits from having seen each prior episode.
The most difficult piece of writing a modern Holmes series is incorporating technology and finding modern day equivalents for Holmes' habits. The struggle with cigarette addiction was the perfect replacement for opium addiction; in one scene Holmes rolls up his sleeve to reveal a multitude of nicotine patches. The character retains his habit of playing the violin, but his detachment from human contact and apparent psychopathy is played up much more than in previous Holmes adaptations. Technologically speaking, cell phones play a large part in the series (with a little product placement here and there, just for fun I'm sure), and Holmes is often seen in the lab, using the latest forensic technologies to solve crimes. Rather than Doctor Watson writing his account of Holmes on paper, it is converted to a blog, both popularizing Holmes' exploits and bringing in new cases. The way technology is brought in is unobtrusive, and does not distract from the story.
Doctor Watson is an incredibly difficult role to play, for any actor, because of his purpose in Doyle's works. He exists solely for the purpose of transmitting to the reader what Holmes is thinking. In comparison with Jude Law's interpretation of a tough wingman for Holmes, Martin Freeman is shown as a much more caring and intellectual type, probably the smartest of the Watson's of years past, while maintaining the steely resolve of a military doctor (he is a veteran of Afghanistan, rather than India, fitting in with the modern interpretation). He is also a crack shot. Rather than having a story with two heroes, Watson is the hero and Holmes the antihero. Freeman excels in protraying this role, as he did in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, because he is so much like the average viewer: smart, caring, and compassionate.
I know I have said little of Cumberbatch as Holmes, but there is really little to say. He is much more intense than other actors, who play Holmes as a much more laid back character, but he has excellent presence, and works well with Freeman. However his absence would not destroy the series.
Sherlock is an excellent series, and I highly recommend it to anyone who loves Doyle's works or the characters he developed.
No comments:
Post a Comment