Watson, our tent has been stolen......

    In a break from my usual routine of films and games I am now going to do my first proper review of a TV show. Sherlock was released on the BBC a couple of years ago and I managed to miss all of it on TV, I did manage to catch a re-run later on though and ended up buying the DVD to watch all of it. There is currently a second series available to buy too however I have only seen the second series on TV and only once, so this will focus on the first series; as when I originally wrote it the second series had not yet been released. I will try to bring in the little I can remember of the second series in my conclusions. Now to make this easier for myself I have broken down the review into four parts, being how it fairs as a TV show, how good an adaptation of the source material it is. The entertainment value will be third, finishing with the stay ability of the show.

     So how is it as a TV show?

Overall I would say that it is a damn fine show, it is fun, exciting and very well made. I have to give special compliments to the casting of this program. Holmes is excellently played by Benedict Cumberbatch, but I was really blown away by the supporting cast, Martin Freeman’s Watson is as fine a Watson a long term fan could have asked for and Inspector Lastrade as played by Rupert Graves was an excellent choice and possibly my favourite of the show. The skill of the casting director reared its head again in series two with the casting of Laura Pulver as Irene Adler. Along with the major characters the villains showed accuracy of the casters eye. Moriarty as played by Andrew Scott was fun, young and full of energy creating a different and much more menacing antithesis to Holmes. Beyond the main man I felt the casting of Phil Davis as “the cabby” in the first episode helped create a great villain both intimidating and sympathetic with an open friendly demeanour, a dangerous enemy.

    

    The casting being the major good part of the show there were other details of the show that helped elevate its status, primarily it never outstays its welcome. The episodes all run at around 90 minutes, each long enough to go into the necessary detail to tell a good story while not being so long that they become dull or overcomplicated. Mixed with great pacing (especially in the series 1 finale “The Great Game”) you ended up with a series comfortable to watch and reflect on.

     

    However there were some issues, the major being the series story; the individual episodes were all wonderfully written and excellently made. When put together though the problem arose of the super powered villain. Each episode was related to Moriarty, and for me this seemed to give him too much power. I felt that if only two episodes were related to him then Holmes would have had more room to move around the world created by Conan Doyle in the original stories. With Moriarty controlling each episode the series gains too much direction and Holmes is limited to a small section of a vast and detailed world of criminals and misunderstandings that defines the original material.

So that’s how it fairs as a show, good but not perfect, but how is it as an adaptation?

Now I am a giant fan of the Sherlock Holmes stories, I have read them since a young age and have seen most adaptations of his numerous books. ITV have their old but long running series based on the stories, and Hammer house of horror even did a decent Hound of the Baskervilles. So in short I know what should be there and I know that the show had a hard job living up to some of the other adaptations. Adding to all this the show is also a modernisation so I knew going in it would not be the most faithful adaptation to the books, many of the adaptive issues therefore are simply due to the change in times.

One of the major changes is definitely due to the change in setting, Holmes is no longer patriotic, a change I can explain, England no longer had the Empire and is now just a shadow of a country, there is little reason to be patriotic these days and the loss of such a trait is in no way upsetting. The change in his character that does annoy and upset me though has nothing to do with the times. In the show Holmes is an arrogant unsympathetic sociopath, even referring to himself as one. In the stories while Holmes does not really like people he knows how to be around them, he offers sympathy, holds an empathetic side and is in no way arrogant. Occasionally he may show off but not to the extent of the new Holmes, in the new series Sherlock berates people and infers they’re stupid for not seeing what he sees, he brags about his abilities and intelligence. The books and older shows had Holmes simply explaining his process, he doesn’t condescend or patronise he simply shows them how in the hope they will learn.

Other character changes came in Watson. The new look and feel of the character was a welcome change truly marking him as new, more than his source material, along with showing Martin Freeman as a great actor.  The addition of therapy at the beginning I thought was an excellent inclusion truly representing the problems faced by modern soldiers and how the issues he faces are dealt with by the contemporary world. It was not all roses for Watson though; an important part of his character was a gambling addiction and the constant reference that Holmes looks after his money. The loss of this character flaw changed the dynamic of the relationship as while Watson emotionally and morally controlled Holmes from time to time, Holmes financially controlled Watson.

The final big character change was in Moriarty, no longer a professor and now a lot younger. Overall I liked the change, Moriarty only appears once or twice in the books but is inferred to be behind many more. They held this attribute in the show, keeping him in the shadows communicating through proxies and not letting Holmes find him until he wants. Although I did think that perhaps he was a bit young to be so powerful and that he could have done with being a little older. Despite the age he was fun as a villain and very intimidating when necessary, he often reminded me of the Joker, especially Mark Hamills rendition of that influential character.

A further, better, change, was the change in the investigative process specifically the use of mobile phones. This was an excellent way to see how Sherlock’s mind works, to see the deductions flowing through him. The phone also showed us how he looks for information and searches for connections, a wonderful way to modernise the scenes of Holmes and Watson searching through the newspapers and libraries for information sometimes crucial to the case at hand. Using the changes in communication really helped the show distinguish itself from others as well as help create a much faster pace allowing Holmes to move faster through a case.

Generally the show is faithful in style but not in character. The changes are explicable, mostly, and generally welcomed. It is however the characters that made the success of the stories not the style and the characters did not always match up right.

So a decent adaptation and a good modernisation, but is it entertaining?

Well, yes, there isn’t much more to say. It is funny, thrilling and has interesting well written stories. The characters as fun and easy to love, in general the high quality of the show demonstrates how far Gatiss and Moffat pushed the boat out to create an enjoyable ride for the audience.

Finally the stay ability, will it continue well?

Now this is where things get confusing, as this was originally meant for pre-series 2. At the time I felt it would do well if the character moved with the story and change the people involved. As well as thinking that due to the sheer vastness of the source material the show will never run out of original stories. I also felt that it could end up similar to the show “Lie to me” once Moriarty dies. In that the show will trundle along without direction. The second series showed some of these beliefs to be correct, the stories were original and the characters moved along nicely with the plot developments. Then Moriarty died, as a veteran Holmes fan I knew Sherlock hadn’t died, and I have yet to figure out what we all missed, but now I worry about the third series and so we will all have to wait for a while to find out these things, and see exactly how the writers deal with the loss of the arch villain.

Really though I like this show, it is an excellent example of how to make a good series, and many other television programmes could learn from it, especially over in the states. I hope it continues well and as a hard core fan I was impressed I look forward to sampling more.