I don’t know if they turned six episodes into three by banging doubles together and saying, “Here. Three movie-length episodes” but the shows were not the right length. A bit too long and with a double bump, if you know what I mean. They then left us at the end of the third one with a cliff-hanger and a promise to return, maybe, next year. I’ve got a pinhead. I’m not going to remember! This is just another case of free-to-air broadcasters treating us like dirt and I’m sick of it.
But, maybe I don’t need to go back. There’s something inherently wrong with the modern Sherlock and I can only work through it, detective stylee, by metaphorically talking out loud.
In a break with tradition, I’ll start with the good stuff. The nods to all the devices and character habits that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (or Sac-Dee as he would be known now) are really good.
For those not familiar, the Sherlock I’m writing about is set NOW. Not Holmes blasted forward in time to the 1970s in a Hounds of the Baskervilles Chase Life on Mars mash up - but defiantly now. There are text additions to the screen like augmented reality. It uses a baroque instrument, the harpsichord, a la Dexter. That’s how NOW it is. There wasn’t any explanation for this, or if there was I missed it but the point is that the fun, or at least the novelty of the show, is predicated on Sherlock being modernised.
Many of the character’s devices and habits have been modernised. Instead of Sherlock’s minute scouring of the papers each morning, he’s joined at the fingertips to his smart-phone. Instead of a ragingly unfashionable morphine addiction, we’ve seen him abuse nicotine patches. The living arrangements between Dr John and Sherlock have come under semi-comic questioning (as they stake out a place of interest from a restaurant, a candle is brought to their table by a kindly restaurateur - to improve the ambience.) Sherlock, instead of generously tipping urchins as a source of street gossip, makes sizable donations to homeless women - and so on. I found these really fun and enjoyed putting the pieces together from my memories of the stories.
However, it is not sustainable and Sherlock Holmes would be complete crap these days - the world is at the same time too big and too small and we‘ve put too much stuff in it for him to work.
One of the major faculties that the traditional Sherlock would bring to the art of detection was a vast knowledge of stuff. He knew who brewed what brand of port. He knew where the tobacco was grown, packaged and who shipped it. All ladies perfumes were identifiable. Jewellers’ individual stamps, watermarks, addresses and opening hours were all stored away in his head. London was known to the last backstreet. These things were believable for a deeply brilliant sociopath with an eidetic memory in 19th Century London.
Let’s put this in the modern context. Sherlock does his trick of divining from a client that he’s just been around the world twice by looking at the client’s watch. The watch’s date display is out by two days, but it’s a brand new Breitling. In fact, one of the tell-tales was that it was a newly (that week) released model.
This is not possible to say about a Breitling having glanced at it from a distance of eight feet. They release new models all the freakin’ time, at different times depending on the sales territory, some of them never to be seen in certain markets at all. This is true of all large commodity manufacturers. Imagine trying to get across all women’s fragrances on the market and staying abreast of the changes. I reckon you’d be challenged to just stay ahead of perfumes released on Rodeo Drive in a week by actresses or pop divas with flagging careers.
Imagine trying to work out what the hell Nokia is up to. Imagine trying to stay ahead of all developments in the major tool of modern crime - the computer. Even given an unfillable and infallible memory, there still isn’t the time to get across the stuff. You can’t know the market. It is global and changes daily and this leads to the next problem.
London isn’t the London it used to be. Sure, it was and is a transport hub, a money nexus and an all around gravitational well for business, culture and crime, but the interconnectedness, the inescapable globalisation that you experience in a proper metropolis means that just being an expert on London is almost pointless when you are talking about anything other than the most petty crime… which Sherlock isn’t interested in. He likes the big, juicy stuff - and that’s international - and again, one person could not have the time to get across all of it and still have time to smash away on a Yamaha violin and solve a couple of crimes.
So, I have some conceptual difficulties with the likelihood of Sherlock Holmes actually working in the modern context - so let’s put my belief in suspenders and get to some other elements of the show.
How about the moral angle. I never thought I’d write this, but I don’t like the morals of the character, Sherlock Holmes. In the traditional setting, his sociopathy and ruthlessness seemed less evil. His consideration for “the game” over the players in it seemed a much less odious character trait. I don’t know if a couple of world wars, a few genocides and a general awakening of the need for us to treat each other better and more ethically since the 19th Century is what’s underlying my concern, but I find the modern Sherlock’s disdain for the innocent humans caught up in the strategising, deeply unpleasant. I sort of find it impossible to really root for him. I feel more for the slightly angry copper who calls him ‘Freak’ and wants to bang him up. At least her heart is in the right place. But, that’s the kind of concern that gets me called a wanker in polite society, so let’s just pretend I didn’t write that bit.
What about the acting? As I was tucking my dickey-shirt into my cumberbatch, I was trying to put my finger on what was annoying me - not least of all the lead actor’s name. Common! What kind of name is Benedict Cumberbatch? I feel like flying to the UK to bully him, just on principle. He’s alright, but he’s not great. Every time I see him getting a bit to self serious, I think of how much I probably would’ve liked Richard E. Grant in the role. There are times when I just see a bit of Withnail poking through in the performance.
The guy who plays Moriarty is atrocious. Serious boo-boo there.
I tell you who’s the revelation, though, Martin Freeman as Dr John. He is just terrific. I read that he is supposed to be Bilbo in The Hobbit. He will be perfect. If they screw that up by taking it away from New Zealand or going into some pre-production meltdown (as of writing, it looks like it is) that will be a fucking crime worth investigating.
So, yeah it’s got ups and downs and I’d like to think that I’ll remember to come back to it, just to see the wind-up, next year… but I don’t know. There’s just so much stuff I’ve got to watch and remember.
No comments:
Post a Comment