Why (IMO) it is a must watch, as explained through a rambling review I wrote which began as a way for me to explore for myself the reasons these series are so great:
Perhaps the best way to begin a review of the either of the two BBC miniseries Sherlock is to say that their depiction of Sherlock Holmes is a truer portrait of the character himself than is Sir Arthur Conan Doyles. I dont simply mean that the series is better than any given (or all) of Doyles stories. Somehow, the Holmes portrayed in the BBC series seems more like Sherlock Holmes than we find in the works by the man who created the character.
Although not perhaps comparable to characters like Superman or Dracula, whose various re-creations, depictions, etc. in print and film are so numerous the total can only be estimated, these miniseries hardly represent the first use of Doyles character by another. Quite recently, for example, Robert Downey Jr. played Sherlock for the second time in Ritchies Sherlock Holmes films. However, none of these various films, episodes, series, etc., is as good as the BBCs Sherlock. As Im reviewing a miniseries rather than one work (and not all episodes are equally brilliant), some general notes and comparisons will, I think, better capture why these miniseries are so excellent.
First, we have the setting. True to the original, the place is London (and the address is 221b Baker St.), but in modern times. Changing the cultural environment so drastically isnt always the right move nor will it necessarily improve a re-creation of a literary work written and taking place in a different era (one need only look at the film Hamlet with Ethan Hawke and compare it to Branaghs version). Such a change will inevitably distance the characters, plot, etc., from the original, and some works lend themselves to modern settings better than others. Cervantes El ingenioso hidalgo don Quixote de la Mancha (a work in which the main characters manner and view is inappropriate to his own time and culture, and thus is easily transported to another) may pose no problem for a creative team wishing to set the story in the modern world, while the same cannot be said of Whites The Once and Future King. Modernizing Doyles character may not prose the same problems as Whites King Arthur, but it is not without risk: strip away enough and you know longer end up with Sherlock Holmes.
In this case, however, the creative genius of the writers and the skill of the actors (particularly Benedict Cumberbatch) allow Sherlock Holmes to remain a faithful portrait of the character and recreation of the stories despite the modern setting. This allows for several otherwise impossible positive effects. Doyles world is no longer ours, and staying true to the original setting would distance the audience. The choice to place Sherlock enabled the episodes to be more real or believable. Additionally, the actors/creators more than made up for the change in setting by remaining faithful in other ways. In the first episode (A Study in Pink) Dr. Watson has, as in A Study in Scarlet, just returned from military service in Afghanistan (on a side note, the fact that this makes sense, in that the English military were in Afghanistan when Doyle wrote and today is perhaps a sad commentary on the human condition). He is introduced to Sherlock in a similar way. Lestrade, Mycroft, Moriarty, Watson, etc., are all present. The show is also full of little brilliant ways to connect to, and yet improve upon and/or make relevant, the archaic elements of Doyles works (much in the same way the creators of Romeo & Juliet with DiCaprio managed to keep the line put up your sword by giving a handgun the brand name Sword). Holmes still plays the violin, but rather than cocaine (readily available to Doyles character because of the setting) he is addicted to nicotine. Watson, instead of narrating the stories as if they are his actual recollections, has a blog. While in the original Study in Scarlet Holmes suggests a search for some Rachel is ill-advised as Rache is German for revenge, in A Study in Pink the situation is reversed:
Anderson: She's German. [Anderson says breaking Sherlocks' concentration] "Rache," German for revenge, she could be trying to tell us...
Sherlock Holmes: [Interrupts] Yes, thank you for your input. [Shuts the door in Anderson's face]
Lestrade: She was writing Rachel?
Sherlock Holmes: No she was leaving an angry note in German, of course she was writing 'Rachel'!
Even better than the ways in which the show is faithful in some way to the original stories are the changes (large and small) to both parts of the plot and to the characters. As Dorothy L. Sayers pointed out long ago, Watsons character is more or less just a device to make Holmes appear brilliant. Rather than developing Watson as a character, Doyle concentrated much more on using him to develop Holmes character. However, in the BBC productions Watson is far more amusing and the repartee between the two is both extremely clever and often hilarious:
John Watson: Go after her and apologize.
Sherlock Holmes: Apologise? Oh John, I envy you so much.
John Watson: You envy me?
Sherlock Holmes: Your mind; it's so placid, straight-forward, barely used. Mine's like an engine, racing out of control; a rocket tearing itself to pieces, trapped on the launchpad... I need a case!
John Watson: You just solved one! By harpooning a dead pig, apparently.
Sherlock Holmes: Oh, that was this morning. When's the next one?
John Watson: Nothing on the website? [Sherlock stands and hands John a laptop showing a message on "the Science of Deduction" website]
Sherlock Holmes: "Dear Mr. Sherlock Holmes, I can't find Bluebell anywhere. Please, please, please can you help?"
John Watson: Bluebell?
Sherlock Holmes: A rabbit, John!
John Watson: Oh.
Sherlock Holmes: Ah but there's more; before Bluebell disappeared it turned luminous like a fairy according to little Kirsty, then the next morning Bluebell was gone. Hutch still locked, no sign of a forced entry. [gasps] What am I saying? this is brilliant. Phone Lestrade, tell him there's an escaped rabbit.
John Watson: You serious?
Sherlock Holmes: It's this or Cluedo.
John Watson: Ah, no. We are never playing that again.
Sherlock Holmes: Why not?
John Watson: Because it's not actually possible for the victim to have done it, Sherlock, that's why!
Sherlock Holmes: It was the only possible solution!
John Watson: It's not in the rules.
Sherlock Holmes: Well then the rules are wrong!
Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sherlock_(TV_series)
Perhaps the best way to begin a review of the either of the two BBC miniseries Sherlock is to say that their depiction of Sherlock Holmes is a truer portrait of the character himself than is Sir Arthur Conan Doyles. I dont simply mean that the series is better than any given (or all) of Doyles stories. Somehow, the Holmes portrayed in the BBC series seems more like Sherlock Holmes than we find in the works by the man who created the character.
Although not perhaps comparable to characters like Superman or Dracula, whose various re-creations, depictions, etc. in print and film are so numerous the total can only be estimated, these miniseries hardly represent the first use of Doyles character by another. Quite recently, for example, Robert Downey Jr. played Sherlock for the second time in Ritchies Sherlock Holmes films. However, none of these various films, episodes, series, etc., is as good as the BBCs Sherlock. As Im reviewing a miniseries rather than one work (and not all episodes are equally brilliant), some general notes and comparisons will, I think, better capture why these miniseries are so excellent.
First, we have the setting. True to the original, the place is London (and the address is 221b Baker St.), but in modern times. Changing the cultural environment so drastically isnt always the right move nor will it necessarily improve a re-creation of a literary work written and taking place in a different era (one need only look at the film Hamlet with Ethan Hawke and compare it to Branaghs version). Such a change will inevitably distance the characters, plot, etc., from the original, and some works lend themselves to modern settings better than others. Cervantes El ingenioso hidalgo don Quixote de la Mancha (a work in which the main characters manner and view is inappropriate to his own time and culture, and thus is easily transported to another) may pose no problem for a creative team wishing to set the story in the modern world, while the same cannot be said of Whites The Once and Future King. Modernizing Doyles character may not prose the same problems as Whites King Arthur, but it is not without risk: strip away enough and you know longer end up with Sherlock Holmes.
In this case, however, the creative genius of the writers and the skill of the actors (particularly Benedict Cumberbatch) allow Sherlock Holmes to remain a faithful portrait of the character and recreation of the stories despite the modern setting. This allows for several otherwise impossible positive effects. Doyles world is no longer ours, and staying true to the original setting would distance the audience. The choice to place Sherlock enabled the episodes to be more real or believable. Additionally, the actors/creators more than made up for the change in setting by remaining faithful in other ways. In the first episode (A Study in Pink) Dr. Watson has, as in A Study in Scarlet, just returned from military service in Afghanistan (on a side note, the fact that this makes sense, in that the English military were in Afghanistan when Doyle wrote and today is perhaps a sad commentary on the human condition). He is introduced to Sherlock in a similar way. Lestrade, Mycroft, Moriarty, Watson, etc., are all present. The show is also full of little brilliant ways to connect to, and yet improve upon and/or make relevant, the archaic elements of Doyles works (much in the same way the creators of Romeo & Juliet with DiCaprio managed to keep the line put up your sword by giving a handgun the brand name Sword). Holmes still plays the violin, but rather than cocaine (readily available to Doyles character because of the setting) he is addicted to nicotine. Watson, instead of narrating the stories as if they are his actual recollections, has a blog. While in the original Study in Scarlet Holmes suggests a search for some Rachel is ill-advised as Rache is German for revenge, in A Study in Pink the situation is reversed:
Anderson: She's German. [Anderson says breaking Sherlocks' concentration] "Rache," German for revenge, she could be trying to tell us...
Sherlock Holmes: [Interrupts] Yes, thank you for your input. [Shuts the door in Anderson's face]
Lestrade: She was writing Rachel?
Sherlock Holmes: No she was leaving an angry note in German, of course she was writing 'Rachel'!
Even better than the ways in which the show is faithful in some way to the original stories are the changes (large and small) to both parts of the plot and to the characters. As Dorothy L. Sayers pointed out long ago, Watsons character is more or less just a device to make Holmes appear brilliant. Rather than developing Watson as a character, Doyle concentrated much more on using him to develop Holmes character. However, in the BBC productions Watson is far more amusing and the repartee between the two is both extremely clever and often hilarious:
John Watson: Go after her and apologize.
Sherlock Holmes: Apologise? Oh John, I envy you so much.
John Watson: You envy me?
Sherlock Holmes: Your mind; it's so placid, straight-forward, barely used. Mine's like an engine, racing out of control; a rocket tearing itself to pieces, trapped on the launchpad... I need a case!
John Watson: You just solved one! By harpooning a dead pig, apparently.
Sherlock Holmes: Oh, that was this morning. When's the next one?
John Watson: Nothing on the website? [Sherlock stands and hands John a laptop showing a message on "the Science of Deduction" website]
Sherlock Holmes: "Dear Mr. Sherlock Holmes, I can't find Bluebell anywhere. Please, please, please can you help?"
John Watson: Bluebell?
Sherlock Holmes: A rabbit, John!
John Watson: Oh.
Sherlock Holmes: Ah but there's more; before Bluebell disappeared it turned luminous like a fairy according to little Kirsty, then the next morning Bluebell was gone. Hutch still locked, no sign of a forced entry. [gasps] What am I saying? this is brilliant. Phone Lestrade, tell him there's an escaped rabbit.
John Watson: You serious?
Sherlock Holmes: It's this or Cluedo.
John Watson: Ah, no. We are never playing that again.
Sherlock Holmes: Why not?
John Watson: Because it's not actually possible for the victim to have done it, Sherlock, that's why!
Sherlock Holmes: It was the only possible solution!
John Watson: It's not in the rules.
Sherlock Holmes: Well then the rules are wrong!
Source: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sherlock_(TV_series)
