[Love his expression at 0:27.]
Ok, I should have written this a couple of months ago. And it's not going to be as analytical as I should have liked. ;) But here goes:
Episode I: A Study in Pink
My overall rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Just come back from the war, Dr John Watson is depressed, bored, and financially strained, until he meets an old acquaintance, Stamford. Stamford introduces him to Sherlock Holmes, a mysterious, unpredictable young man, who has an amazing talent for detection, and what he calls "the Science of Deduction". Like Watson, Sherlock also needs an inexpensive place to live, so they agree to pay half-and-half on rooms at 221b Baker Street. Watson's new residence might be more costly than he expects, however, as he follows Holmes on a dangerous attempt to solve a series of murders.
As you can see, I still can't get used to calling him "Sherlock", but it actually doesn't sound silly in the context of the show. ;) This is the most eccentric portrayal of Holmes I've seen yet--to the point of becoming rather creepy. Some of it is straight from the books (beating the corpse, for example); and I'd say that this quote from A Study in Scarlet sums it up well:
"Holmes is a little too scientific for my tastes -- it approaches to cold-bloodedness. I could imagine his giving a friend a little pinch of the latest vegetable alkaloid, not out of malevolence, you understand, but simply out of a spirit of inquiry in order to have an accurate idea of the effects."
I think this is the first time that I've found this quote to be true. :P And sometimes I think they overdid it, making him too callous and not very personable. On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if that was the impression Holmes made on Victorian readers.
There were some things I loved about Cumberbatch as Holmes, though. First of all, his age--he's only supposed to be 27 at the beginning of the series, so it was great to see a young Holmes, for once. Secondly (and in the same vein), he was a good balance between brilliant and slightly inexperienced; he made a small mistake in one of his deductions, and in another scene he betrayed a weakness for desperately wanting to know if he was right. More than once you can actually see the young Holmes who once loftily said, "I know well that I have it in me to make my name famous." Thirdly, he's unromantic (for once!), dedicated to his work, and as amazing at his thought-processes as he is in the book.
We're able to literally read his thoughts, as the clues he sees and the text messages he sends ("I prefer to text") show up on the screen in very cool subtitles. This doesn't detract from his genius. Quite the contrary, actually; it's neat to read his deductions, step by step. This and the cinematography in general are excellent. Sometimes Sherlock explains his thoughts to Watson or Lestrade--he talks super fast, but Cumberbatch can do it while still being understandable. And he's got a very Holmesian voice!
But, dare I say it, I think Watson stole the show during the first episode. A doctor and a blogger, Freeman as Watson wonderfully portrays Watson's doubts, strengths, and sense of loyalty. He takes an instant interest in Holmes's work, and tries to be helpful as he meanwhile attempts to understand Holmes's eccentric personality. Watson's a likeable, admirable character in his own way, and it was easier to sympathize with him.
I think one of the obvious but major differences between this TV version and other versions was the fact that it took place in modern-day. The story, in a certain sense, seemed more real than if it were the 1940s or 1890s. It was the same Holmes and Watson, and the same stories; but seeing them in 2008 or 2009 (for example) is something you can actually relate to, and almost lends a little more credibility to the story (not that it needs any, but just saying).
A few other things I loved about this episode were the soundtrack, Holmes and Watson's meeting (PERFECT!), and 221b Baker Street, which was really cool. I gave this episode only 4 stars instead of 5 because there was some bad language/profanity and because Holmes's eccentricity was too over-the-top at times. Overall I'd say that this episode, content-wise, was comparable to Poirot, Miss Marple, and Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes.
0 comments:
Post a Comment