When I think of quality television in the U.S., I think of HBO, Showtime and other premium cable networks and series that really raise the bar and provide a sense of either realism or filmic qualities. Now I can add Sherlock to that list because the show is simply that: quality. After watching “Blink” and now having watched another Steven Moffat written television episode, I would certainly argue for Moffat as an auteur and Sherlock as his triumphant quality program.
The show does a terrific job of creating the look and feel of a highly produced movie and it is clearly evident (as we discussed in class) that the BBC has put forth a generous portion of their funds to make this program have the high quality look and feel that it does. The episode is clearly shot on location in London, in what appears to be the streets (if not then those are some impressively accurate looking sets), lending to its realistic look and feel. If Sherlock Holmes is going to be adapted into modern day society, I cannot think of a better way to do it, in terms of the location shooting and the quality production value. Likewise, the character himself is appropriately fitted to mirror the classic Holmes while also providing a distinct element of flair that makes him fit within today’s world.
One aspect of the show that particularly stuck out to me as both unique and well done was the usage of the graphic elements on screen to say what was being sent in a text message as well as what Holmes was thinking. While I admit, sometimes I felt the graphics were distracting, such as in the press conference scene at the beginning or when Holmes inspects the victim’s body, I actually grew to like their usage as the show progressed. They helped to add a distinctly different feel (at least from the American shows I have seen) and set Sherlock apart in terms of its identity.
Where I think Moffat really stands out as an auteur on this series is in his ability to write a narrative that successfully incorporates strong character relationships and building (specifically Holmes and Watson of course), suspense and mystery, and especially an ability to connect with and engage the audience. This episode is written in such a way that audience members are constantly intrigued by the mystery at hand, but also are provided with enough clues to make logical conclusions about whom the murderer may be. I found it to be just the right balance between learning enough information to be trying to figure out what was going on while not necessarily being able to dive one hundred percent into a sound conclusion too early on. This is where I think Sherlock does a terrific job of reflecting the ideals of British television’s notion of high quality and intellectual television. The show is “educational” in ways because it makes its viewers think. And this educational value only adds to the overall idea of a quality television show, which has an awesome look, feel, depth, and entertainment value. I am surely hooked on Sherlock now and think we may want to devote five more screenings to finishing the first two series.
Ronnie, I couldn’t agree more. One of the things I feel makes quality television “quality television” is that it has to jar the audience in someway. Obviously there are many ways to do this–innovative shots, challenging plots, unique premises, etc–but there was a big difference, to me, between Sherlock as quality television and a show such as Mad Men as quality television. I’m assuming most people are semi-familiar with Mad Men (even though the ratings would disagree). But it is a period-drama, more along the lines of Call the Midwife (from the clips I have seen) than the contemporary Sherlock. Regardless, Mad Men jars the audience through fantastic writing and a shocking realism that people often don’t attribute to the era. Sherlock, on the other hand, is one of the most innovative shows I’ve seen, with the text on screen you mentioned. While that is certainly something I haven’t seen in a program like this before, the thing that really “jarred” me occurred early in the show, and clear throughout Outnumbered. The lack of invisible editing during the “serial suicides” drove me up a wall. It was very jarring and disconnected but accomplished what it set out to do. That’s something you would never see during American television but something that worked for Sherlock.
I too agree that Sherlock epitomizes quality television within a British context. Especially in contrast with Outnumbered, Sherlock came across as one of the most polished, detail-oriented shows I have ever seen. Personally, I found the special effects and expensive cinematic quality overwhelming at times, and the plot became muddled by the unique camera angles and cuts. The visual effects, however, were certainly top notch.
In regards to the script, I was blown away by the charismatic nature of the show. The dialogue was incredibly witty and sharp. I mostly enjoyed the show due to the ridiculously clever conversations and interactions in each scene, conjured up by Sherlock of course.
Both the show’s visual effects and poignant wit allowed “A Study in Pink” to maintain just the right level of confusing. While it didn’t leave the viewer in the dust, it also allowed them to create various hypotheses regarding the plot. I pinpointed potential avenues for the episode to take, but I didn’t foresee the conclusion to the episode until the very end.
I also agree that Sherlock is a perfect example of BBC’s commitment to high quality programming. One thing that you mentioned was the use of graphics on the screen, and how the show has a very movie-like quality. I couldn’t agree more, and I feel like it’s something that is often missing from American television. It seems that more often than not on television, directing is supposed to be “invisible” and not take away from the writing and acting. While Americans are familiar with many film auteurs, those who we consider to be television auteurs are pretty much exclusively writers/showrunners. It would be interesting to see if Sherlock’s stylized aesthetic feel could become more prevalent in American television, to the point where directors would feel comfortable leaving some sort of personal mark on the work that they do.
As a huge “Sherlock” fan, I have to agree with the above comments, as do most critics of the show. The only actual negative criticism I’ve ever read about the show was concerning the episode I mentioned in class on Wednesday – Irene Adler as a dominatrix was certainly an interesting take, but some viewers were concerned whether or not it was appropriate.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2081486/Lara-Pulver-naked-Sherlock-Holmes-BBC-raunchy-pre-watershed-scenes.html
Also, there was quite a backlash from the feminist community about the episode- although Irene was portrayed as a dominatrix, ::spoilers:: her downfall still came from her romantic feelings for Sherlock and she had to be saved by him in the end of the episode in a very dashing, damsel-in-distress move. Another interesting article that explains this far better than I could…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/03/sherlock-sexist-steven-moffat