On the Case With "Sherlock"

After two two-part television posts over the weekend, I'm afraid I have another one for you. I got a look at the new BBC "Sherlock," created by Mark Gatiss and Stephen Merchant, and it's definitely going to need more than one post to get my thoughts across. The short version: The series can best be described as three ninety-minute TV movies. The first and third are excellent. The second completely rubbed me the wrong way, to the point where I hope they sell these installments separately so I can avoid buying that one. I think it's only fair that I separate out my evaluation of the offending episode in its own separate post. But first, the good stuff.

I know he's a fictional character, but I feel oddly more secure knowing that Sherlock Holmes is back on the streets of London, with Dr. Watson at his side and the authorities trailing woefully far behind. "Sherlock" is a reimagining of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories, which takes the the original plots and reworks them for the present day. The protagonists, likewise, are a mix of familiar details in a modern context. Dr. John Watson (Martin Freeman) is newly arrived in London after military service in Afghanistan, recovering from an injured leg, and looking for a roommate. He's introduced to Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch), the world's first and only consulting detective, and is soon touring 221B Baker Street and assisting on Holmes' latest murder case.

Cumberbatch's Sherlock Holmes defines the show. A self-declared "high functioning sociopath," condescending and arrogant, Sherlock knows he's brilliant and makes sure that everyone around him knows it too. He's also completely lacking in social graces, and thinks nothing of using his deductive powers to reveal the details of other people's private lives right to their faces. Thus, at the start of the series he has no friends, no close personal relationships of any kind, and has alienated just about everyone on the police force. Detective Inspector Lestrade (Rupert Graves) only calls on his expertise out of desperation, and earns a torrent of jibes and insults from the detective for his reluctance. Idiocy annoys Sherlock, and to Sherlock everyone is an idiot. He could be a more misanthropic nephew of Hugh Laurie's Dr. Gregory House, also a descendant of the original Holmes, or a meaner cousin to Dr. Sheldon Cooper from "The Big Bang Theory."

I can't say enough about Cumberbatch's performance, which gives the obnoxious, charismatic young Holmes no obvious quirks, but nonetheless projects an air of remoteness and oddity. Visually, he's practically monochromatic, pale of complexion and always dressed in dark colors. One suspects he was not born, but activated. Or possible unearthed. His best moments come when he's caught up in the the chase, puzzling his way through clues, brain fully engaged and excited. In the heat of the moment he often thinks out loud, and so quickly that he sometimes won't bother explaining his epiphanies immediately. Holmes gets so singularly focused on solving mysteries, it's easy to see why everything else becomes of secondary importance. At least one character points out that his relationship to his work is that of an addict seeking his next fix. And as in the Doyle originals, Holmes also dallies in more traditional substance abuse.

Watson reacts the way the audience does, simultaneously impressed and taken aback, but mostly impressed. Holmes finds plenty of ways to be aggravating, but his exploits also provide Watson with much-needed intellectual stimulation and a way to ease back into civilian life. Watching their friendship form is a lot of fun, and Martin Freeman puts his comic talents to good use with baleful reactions and sputtering protestations in the face of Holmes' outrageous behavior. His Watson initially seems like such a mild-mannered pushover, it's easy to misjudge his true mettle. But as time wears on, he becomes less of an audience stand-in, and his own capacity for smarts and heroism begins to come through. Freeman and Cumberbatch are a great onscreen duo, bantering and bickering their way through dangers and doldrums with equal dexterity, and it's hard to imaging the show without either of them.

"Sherlock" is a very strong production all around. The writers are instrumental here, providing well-plotted stories and sharp dialogue. Unlike most police procedurals, the focus remains on the character interactions as opposed to the cases themselves. Holmes stays persistently uninvolved emotionally, caring only about the cold logic of the game, so there's not nearly as much of the filler that comes with guest stars and sensationalized crimes. The direction is on par, with little evidence of corner-cutting or compromised quality. A neat little trick is the superimposition of text and graphics on screen. Sometimes these are incoming text messages or E-mail exchanges received by one of the characters, which saves the actors the time and trouble of reading them aloud. In one scene, Holmes' thoughts pop up as he examines a corpse, giving us a glimpse into his deductive process and saving the audience from an onslaught of expository dialogue.

Speaking of texts and E-mails, sussing out the various ways that the duo's Victorian traits have been translated into modern day equivalents is a source of endless amusement. Holmes is never without his smart-phone and his preferred means of communication is by texting. His violin is the old-fashioned kind, but his pipe has been replaced with nicotine patches, and he dubs a vexing snag in a case "a three patch problem." Watson blogs his case write-ups instead of committing them to paper, and protests when strangers assume the co-habitating bachelors are a couple. This isn't the first adaptation to insinuate the potential pairing, but it is the first where it's presented as a perfectly acceptable, non-scandalous possibility. The show works perfectly well without knowing any of the references, but such solid knowledge of the source material is always a plus.

But for all the fuss over faithfulness, I think it's the show's willingness to take the characters in new directions that is its real strength. This version of Sherlock Holmes has a welcome dark side, even without the influence of the villainous forces lurking in the background. "Sherlock" works best as a character study of its title character, who is at least as fascinating and complex as any of the cases that he tackles. With Watson prodding him to embrace humanity and sinister forces taking an unhealthy interest in him, it'll be interesting to see what direction the character takes. I'm looking forward to the return of "Sherlock" in the future, which is all but assured from the boffo ratings its summer run garnered in the UK. However, I'm also worried that more episodes will mean a dilution of quality, and lead to more installments like the unfortunate second episode that I'll devote my next blog post to.