Sherlock Holmes is back! After Guy Ritchie's last venture into the cinematic interpretation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Victorian adventure novels, Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat and have picked up Britain's most famous detective and given the stories a modern twist. The BBC-produced series is set in 21st century London and stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman as Dr. Watson. The first season is structured into 3 independent 90-minutes episodes, starting with Doyle's 'A study in Scarlett', here under the title 'A Study in Pink', directed by Gangster N. 1's Paul Gaughin, followed by 'The Blind Banker' and 'The Great Game'.
The series' main asset lies in its modern re-interpretation as it leads us through urban London's narrow back alleys, its sleek glass-fronted finance district to the borders of the Thames. It quickly becomes obvious that we have left the gas-light streets of Victorian London behind, even though the lighting of the series clearly alludes to that period with its golden and brown brick colour-scheme, suggesting that even in this technically advanced modern environment, the motives of crime have never changed. Crime is human, revenge, greed and passion are never out of date, only the means of its execution and resolution have altered, as Holmes and Watson are texting, blogging and using GPS systems all throughout their adventures. These modern devices, however, do not impair the qualities of the plot as they never undermine Holmes' deductive investigation methods.
This is no highly stylised English version of CSI, it clearly highlights the fact that crime is human, committed and resolved by individuals. As such, human motivation lies at the heart of the series' theme. The characters carry the series; they are, without exception, well thought through, coherent and with personal quirks which make Sherlock come alive. The script is peopled with original characters, from a landlady who serves biscuits and consoles Holmes that 'a nice murder'll cheer [him] up', to Watson's girlfriend who works nine to five and doesn't mind knocking out Chinese gangsters on a first date. As such, the characters display that typically British attitude of taking things as they come, whether it'd be a pint or a murder. They keep calm and carry on. At the same time, the characters all exist in relation to Holmes, this as such comes as no surprise as the minor characters are often reliant on the protagonists, here, however, the supporting roles are defined by their attitude towards and their opinion of Holmes.
Detective Inspector Lestrate is mainly characterised by his frustration in dealing with Holmes while not being able to hide his admiration for the latter. As such his screen presence is justified by his disposition towards and his assessments of Holmes' actions and train of thoughts. The same goes, to a certain extent, for Watson. Even tough he is very much an equal partner, rather than the ridiculous sidekick from the past, he is nonetheless Holmes' audience, staring admiringly at the great master while cleaning up after him, sometimes literally. Watson makes up for all of Holmes' shortcomings, most of which are of a social nature.
At the same time the series introduces a worthy enemy in reintroducing Holmes' arch-enemy Moriarty from the novels. He first appears in a minor role pretending to be someone else (notice how I'm trying not to spoil anything, here?), he is a hyperbolic character whose exaggerated body language misleadingly introduces him as a somewhat farcical buffoon. Things couldn't be further from the truth as this buffoon becomes the most frightening character of the series as his eerily comical behaviour turns psychotic. The spectator, just like Holmes underestimates Moriarty. At the same time, Moriarty serves as classic nemesis to the Holmes character as the two represent two sides of the proverbial coin. Their thought process is identical, one anticipating, manipulating and comprehending the thoughts of the other. Both characters engage in a game which lies outside the boundaries of common morality. These are characters functioning outside the norm, intellectually and in terms of motives.
This confrontation with his nemesis also emphasises the darker side of Holmes. The character play-off heralds a blurring of the line between sociopath and psychopath and the spectator is uncomfortably reminded of the female detective's assessment of Holmes in the first episode, stating that one day Holmes will be the one to commit the murder rather than solve it. 'Will it help me solve the case quicker if I care [about the victim]?' he asks an astonished Watson, alluding to his purely cerebral evaluation of the world, which discards any interactive relation of an emotional nature. Holmes' intelligence lies in his ability to objectively assess the world, to see its workings from the outside, hence from a completely detached point of view. His only relation which could remotely be called interpersonal is his alliance with John Watson.
This is no highly stylised English version of CSI, it clearly highlights the fact that crime is human, committed and resolved by individuals. As such, human motivation lies at the heart of the series' theme. The characters carry the series; they are, without exception, well thought through, coherent and with personal quirks which make Sherlock come alive. The script is peopled with original characters, from a landlady who serves biscuits and consoles Holmes that 'a nice murder'll cheer [him] up', to Watson's girlfriend who works nine to five and doesn't mind knocking out Chinese gangsters on a first date. As such, the characters display that typically British attitude of taking things as they come, whether it'd be a pint or a murder. They keep calm and carry on. At the same time, the characters all exist in relation to Holmes, this as such comes as no surprise as the minor characters are often reliant on the protagonists, here, however, the supporting roles are defined by their attitude towards and their opinion of Holmes.
Detective Inspector Lestrate is mainly characterised by his frustration in dealing with Holmes while not being able to hide his admiration for the latter. As such his screen presence is justified by his disposition towards and his assessments of Holmes' actions and train of thoughts. The same goes, to a certain extent, for Watson. Even tough he is very much an equal partner, rather than the ridiculous sidekick from the past, he is nonetheless Holmes' audience, staring admiringly at the great master while cleaning up after him, sometimes literally. Watson makes up for all of Holmes' shortcomings, most of which are of a social nature.
At the same time the series introduces a worthy enemy in reintroducing Holmes' arch-enemy Moriarty from the novels. He first appears in a minor role pretending to be someone else (notice how I'm trying not to spoil anything, here?), he is a hyperbolic character whose exaggerated body language misleadingly introduces him as a somewhat farcical buffoon. Things couldn't be further from the truth as this buffoon becomes the most frightening character of the series as his eerily comical behaviour turns psychotic. The spectator, just like Holmes underestimates Moriarty. At the same time, Moriarty serves as classic nemesis to the Holmes character as the two represent two sides of the proverbial coin. Their thought process is identical, one anticipating, manipulating and comprehending the thoughts of the other. Both characters engage in a game which lies outside the boundaries of common morality. These are characters functioning outside the norm, intellectually and in terms of motives.
This confrontation with his nemesis also emphasises the darker side of Holmes. The character play-off heralds a blurring of the line between sociopath and psychopath and the spectator is uncomfortably reminded of the female detective's assessment of Holmes in the first episode, stating that one day Holmes will be the one to commit the murder rather than solve it. 'Will it help me solve the case quicker if I care [about the victim]?' he asks an astonished Watson, alluding to his purely cerebral evaluation of the world, which discards any interactive relation of an emotional nature. Holmes' intelligence lies in his ability to objectively assess the world, to see its workings from the outside, hence from a completely detached point of view. His only relation which could remotely be called interpersonal is his alliance with John Watson.
Watson is an ex-soldier, just returned from the war in Afghanistan. He suffers from a psychosomatic limb and PTSD. The spectator is first introduced to him in a therapy session in which his therapist urges him to communicate with his surrounding. Watson does what any modern individual would, he starts blogging, a habit that backfires in episode 3 as the bomber uses the medium to keep updates on Holmes', a comment on modern need for exposure without realizing the risks involved. The series introduces us to Watson as a broken man, returned from war to a life which has no one waiting for him and battling with a severe depression. Ex-soldiers, struggling with PTSD are often known to fall into depression once once their life is no longer in immediate danger and Watson is no exception, a man desperate for distraction-cue Holmes!
This modern version of Holmes needs a flatmate, but seeing that he's a sociopath, the search proves difficult. This is the premise of the series, a broken soldier looking for the distraction of danger and a socially detached, brilliant consulting detective (yes, the only one in the world!) with what bears all the symptoms of Asperger's syndrome. As such Benedict Cumberbatche's Holmes is a much darker character than Robert Downey Jr's character. This is a man who does not choose to be socially detached, as does Ritchie's version in a gimmicky sort of way, this character is unable to connect to other human beings. He does not see victims, he sees clues, motivations and criminal intent. In Holmes' deductive mind, people function as part of an equation, they are all deductible until said equation is broken down to a point which cannot be but the truth. Watson serves as the emotional barometer in this equation. He takes interest in the people involved in this criminal equation.
Watson's admiration for Holmes borders on hero worship, an idealisation Holmes' consequently refuses. He points out to Watson, keep in mind that this is a man who returned from war, but still believes in Queen and Country, that he will not be turned into an abstract object of worship, a fact that greatly disappoints Watson, which does, however, not break his devotion to him. Moffat and Gatiss' Holmes is ruthless, cold, but what redeems the character is his complete and utter honesty as he, for example, tells the morgue attendant that her new boyfriend is gay. He is then chided by Watson for not being kind, but with his complete disdain for what he would call irrationality, but what other people might call emotions, Holmes points out that she might be better off knowing now than later.
Even though there might have been variations on Holmes' character over the years, one characteristic is associated with Holmes like no other and this is the trait of arrogance. If at all possible, the Gatiss-Moffat duo reinforces this distinctive Holmesian attribute. The characters around Holmes are clever, they are, evidently not as adept as Holmes, in fact, the secondary characters represent the spectator. The questions they ask are the spectator's question; everyone is looking to Holmes for answers. Here lies the crux of the series: the plot lines and, to a certain extent, the cinematography not only mirror, they coincide with Holmes' train of thoughts.
The plot evolves around the assumptions Holmes makes; the camera lingers on his face as he lies on the sofa, thinking, only to jump to the next scene or shot once Holmes has come to a conclusion. The rhythm of the series, the pace of events is, as such, completely dependent on the main protagonist which gives the series a somewhat erratic pace, nevertheless suiting its content as the spectator follows Holmes on his journey through the criminal underworld of London, while he indignantly explains his introspection into the cases to his colleagues and most importantly to the spectator.
Holmes also dominates the tone of the series as it is funny without being ridiculous, fast-paced without being hectic, clever without being overwhelming, arrogant, but strangely enough, never aloof. The imagery does not spare the spectator representations of bodies, a depiction that, however, never descends to a sensationalist level of Exhibitionism. The rendering of the victims remains clinical, detached, never trying to aggregate cheap thrills with gory details. Rather than an ordinary crime series with its plot twisting and turning, introducing elements of surprise which 'happen' to the protagonist, Sherlock takes its spectator on a journey through Holmes' mind.
This modern version of Holmes needs a flatmate, but seeing that he's a sociopath, the search proves difficult. This is the premise of the series, a broken soldier looking for the distraction of danger and a socially detached, brilliant consulting detective (yes, the only one in the world!) with what bears all the symptoms of Asperger's syndrome. As such Benedict Cumberbatche's Holmes is a much darker character than Robert Downey Jr's character. This is a man who does not choose to be socially detached, as does Ritchie's version in a gimmicky sort of way, this character is unable to connect to other human beings. He does not see victims, he sees clues, motivations and criminal intent. In Holmes' deductive mind, people function as part of an equation, they are all deductible until said equation is broken down to a point which cannot be but the truth. Watson serves as the emotional barometer in this equation. He takes interest in the people involved in this criminal equation.
Watson's admiration for Holmes borders on hero worship, an idealisation Holmes' consequently refuses. He points out to Watson, keep in mind that this is a man who returned from war, but still believes in Queen and Country, that he will not be turned into an abstract object of worship, a fact that greatly disappoints Watson, which does, however, not break his devotion to him. Moffat and Gatiss' Holmes is ruthless, cold, but what redeems the character is his complete and utter honesty as he, for example, tells the morgue attendant that her new boyfriend is gay. He is then chided by Watson for not being kind, but with his complete disdain for what he would call irrationality, but what other people might call emotions, Holmes points out that she might be better off knowing now than later.
Even though there might have been variations on Holmes' character over the years, one characteristic is associated with Holmes like no other and this is the trait of arrogance. If at all possible, the Gatiss-Moffat duo reinforces this distinctive Holmesian attribute. The characters around Holmes are clever, they are, evidently not as adept as Holmes, in fact, the secondary characters represent the spectator. The questions they ask are the spectator's question; everyone is looking to Holmes for answers. Here lies the crux of the series: the plot lines and, to a certain extent, the cinematography not only mirror, they coincide with Holmes' train of thoughts.
The plot evolves around the assumptions Holmes makes; the camera lingers on his face as he lies on the sofa, thinking, only to jump to the next scene or shot once Holmes has come to a conclusion. The rhythm of the series, the pace of events is, as such, completely dependent on the main protagonist which gives the series a somewhat erratic pace, nevertheless suiting its content as the spectator follows Holmes on his journey through the criminal underworld of London, while he indignantly explains his introspection into the cases to his colleagues and most importantly to the spectator.
Holmes also dominates the tone of the series as it is funny without being ridiculous, fast-paced without being hectic, clever without being overwhelming, arrogant, but strangely enough, never aloof. The imagery does not spare the spectator representations of bodies, a depiction that, however, never descends to a sensationalist level of Exhibitionism. The rendering of the victims remains clinical, detached, never trying to aggregate cheap thrills with gory details. Rather than an ordinary crime series with its plot twisting and turning, introducing elements of surprise which 'happen' to the protagonist, Sherlock takes its spectator on a journey through Holmes' mind.
Cumberbatch plays Holmes with an outlandishness which reminded me of Richard E. Grants 'Withnail' with his gangly movements and a sense of British eccentricity taken to extreme. Like Grant, Cumberbatch portrays Holmes with a social disdain which borders on the recluse. Cumberbatch struts through the frame in an overly confident and aloof manner while his very physique sometimes displays reptilian attributes with unnaturally bright eyes, emphasised by the cinematography's lighting. Freeman counteracts Cumberbatch's physical expression of superiority with a wonderfully understated, occasionally slightly awkward, lingering in the frame. Freeman holds his own next to Cumberbatch in introducing a quiet presence on screen which is never undermined or overpowered by the extreme nature of his screen partner.
As such the wonderful characters and the performances make Sherlock a diverse and original crime drama which is not afraid to tackle Britain's most famous detective from a different angle, thus giving new life to a much-loved classic. Sherlock might not be everyone's cup of tea, but then Ritchie's latest instalment of the Conan Doyle novels is about to make another appearance on our screens and we can once again observe a Holmes and Watson with whitened teeth and fashionably dishevelled hair. This spectator, for once, cannot wait for the second series to come out in September.
No comments:
Post a Comment