Admission: I’m mad I never watched Sherlock before this week. I’ve had friends tell me repeatedly how wonderful it was, and yet I wouldn’t allow myself to get sucked into something new. I should have known that after having “TV as a Storytelling Medium”, which led to many hours dedicated to Friday Night Lights and Survivor, that this class would peak my curiosity in many new capacities. Not just because of the acting, dialogue, or action specifically, but simply for the fact that it blew the Robert Downey Jr. out of the water.
Don’t get me wrong, RDJ can do little wrong. But looking at the American franchise of Sherlock Holmes, I’m embarrassed at our incarnation. Within this ninety-minute episode, I felt more connected with Holmes and Watson than in two Hollywood blockbusters under the same inspiration. The plucky soundtrack reminded me of the film, with very similar sound aesthetics, but the writing reached a new level. Both versions featured irritating versions of Sherlock: know-it-all, cocky, disrespectful, and oblivious to others’ feelings outside of what would benefit him. And yet, the BBC’s Sherlock humanized the man with the great mind, allowing us to discover the kinship between the duo in front of us, not just RDJ being silly and Jude Law rolling his eyes. Sherlock, frankly, cared.
On top of that, the biggest difference stemmed from the mystery set-up. Hollywood chose the biggest, most explosive premise possible, no effect unspecialized. The television series plays off of the people, perhaps due to budget, but still maintains a cinematic quality. Without relying on pizzazz, Sherlock portrayed a captivating mystery that included the viewer. On Monday, about forty minutes in, I wanted nothing more than to shout, “IT WAS A CAB DRIVER. HOW DO YOU NOT SEE THAT.” Whereas the movie leaves little opportunity for audience interaction, we just sit idly by and prepare to get “wowed” by Sherlock’s deduction.
Leave it to the British to properly adapt their cultural icon to the screen
I agree, to some extent, with how you characterize the differences between “Sherlock” the television show and “Sherlock Holmes” the Hollywood blockbuster. The former is a thinking man’s drama whereas the latter is big budget, special effects laden popcorn flick. For me, however, I am able to enjoy each for the reason that both are trying to accomplish different goals. In my mind, they both do so successfully. Whereas “Sherlock” is looking to achieve the BBC’s mission of “inform, educate, and entertain,” Hollywood is going for spectacle, laughs, and thrills. I think this divide is evidence of a point Professor Becker made in class this week–Americans appreciate visual entertainment, while Brits favor the written word. While “Sherlock” may be a television show, it contains elements of this literary tradition. Ultimately, while they both may be based off the same character, I think it is tough to pick one or the other as “better,” because these two incarnations of the same character are aiming for two different things.
I really like your comparison of the American blockbusters and the BBC televised versions of “Sherlock”. The beauty of the BBC version is that it is like a mini-movie that can be watched in the comfort of our home (or classroom…). AND, watching the BBC version at home doesn’t seem to lose any of it’s value, unlike the American version that seems to require a big screen because of the intense action scenes. In my opinion, I agree that the BBC offers something special for people of the UK. The two characters become more human for me in one 90 minute episode than two lengthy films. Emphasis on dialogue rather than the unique direction of Guy Richie helped to propel the story and characters further with less time. This being said, I found myself wanting MORE BBC “Sherlock” whereas in the American theaters I am content when the movie is over. I think that in itself speaks to the power and strong entertainment value this BBC product offers to viewers from both the UK and America.
I like your image of RDJ being obnoxious and Jude Law rolling his eyes. You definitely get a lot more depth with these characters, especially Watson. Sherlock does not sacrifice the humorous dynamic, but it does add a lot to the characterization of both men. The writing is, as you said, much much sharper, and the emphasis is on Sherlock Holmes instead of Guy Ritchie’s direction.