BBC’s the best
What has been fascinating about all these different Holmes appearing in movies and TV shows is what aspect of Holmes gets highlighted. Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed literary character in history, according to a story by the Daily Mail -- a testament to Doyle’s creation.
I haven’t seen many of them. There are a lot of surprising actors -- Peter Cushing (Grand Moff Tarkin?), Roger Moore (Bond? James Bond?), Christopher Lee (Saruman?), Michael Caine (Alfred?), Ian Richardson (Mr. Book?) and Rupert Everett (Algernon?) have all had a chance at the role, as have 248 others.
Apparently, you can get fans quite riled up by asking who was better, Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. It’s funnier than asking magicians whether David Blaine or Criss Angel is better (for the record: I say Blaine in a landslide).
Anyway, each one of those actors has had a take about his character, and the directors and writers of the stories also had ideas. Downey and director Guy Ritchie, for instance, delved into Holmes’ quirky side (and fancy special effects, but that’s a separate gripe).
A couple of weeks ago, I praised Benedict Cumberbatch’s take on a modern Holmes. His portrayal is one of the best out there -- he runs circles around Robert Downey Jr. and Ben Syder, two of the latest to take on the role.
The developers of the show are largely responsible for how well done “Sherlock” is, however.
Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, who also write for “Doctor Who,” have put a tremendous effort into focusing on how Holmes is an abrasive maladroit.
In the books, spectators of Holmes’ brilliant solutions are dazzled by his intelligence, and Holmes basks in it, delivering his deductions like a brief college lecture. But in the displays in “Sherlock,” his deductions and ascerbic insults leave other characters blistering -- to the point where they think Holmes is no genius, but a serial killer. And that’s just Holmes -- er, Cumberbatch.
As Dr. John Watson was the narrator in the books, Martin Freeman’s Watson is the heart and soul of the viewer. He stands up to Holmes and others. He says exactly the right, stinging responses and never leaves a conversation wishing he had said something differently.
The two make for a great on-screen friendship that is almost tear-inducing at the end of the second season of the show (The U.S. debut of “The Reichenbach Fall” was shown Sunday on PBS).
I’ve never seen an on-screen adaption of a literary work be so deviant from its source material, yet so loyal. The work that Moffat and Gatiss have done betters the work that Steven Jackson did with his movie adaptations of “The Lord of the Rings.”
It’s so good that it re-awakens my love of Doyle’s wonderful books. And back to Cumberbatch -- he replaces the illustration in my head now.
He’s that good. He is Sherlock.
Sorry, Robert.
READ MORE:
http://www.joplinglobe.com/lifestyles/x1968171301/Joe-Hadsall-Sherlock-Holmes-enjoying-a-renaissance
4 comments:
Ummm...Perhaps he meant Peter Jackson, who made the film adaptations of The Lord of the Rings.
Other than that, I agree with the author's appreciation for the Sherlock series, and I enjoyed learning those details about Sherlock Holmes portrayals over the years.
I thought that Steven Jackson thing sounded off. Good catch. I love the paragraph near the end where he says the work is so deviant from the source material and yet so loyal to the character.
Since the end of this 2nd series has concluded in the US, I've been reading a lot about the genius of the modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, but I really would like to discuss a bit more is the modern adaptation of the Moriarty character. I don't think I've ever seen this character portrayed as insanely as in this series, which brings a whole new dimesion for me. Thoughts?
Moriarty is my least favorite character because he's almost comic book in his insanity - like the Joker. The series is so rich otherwise, to me this characterization diminishes it. The actor is great, but I'd like him to tone it down - he'd be a lot scarier
Post a Comment