Sherlock: The Adventure of the Texting Men

Guest post written by John Rivers

Chris Carter, creator of The X-Files once commented that his show was made possible by the creation of the mobile phone. His two protagonists could be split up, yet still maintain contact throughout, thus removing the need for constant explanation or, at the very least, the removal of lines like “I’ll tell you all about it later.”

The natural progression seems to be the texting. In the BBC’s Sherlock our two heroes are rarely out of textual communication, missives that are then repeated for the benefit of the audience as printed text on the screen, so they can at least stay on top of the game at the same speed the characters do.

It’s a useful device, sometimes alerting us to the speed-of-light thinking of Holmes himself as he examines a dead body, sometimes to keep the characters (and audience) informed of the details of a complex plot (such as Mycroft’s persistent messages to Watson over the Bruce Partington missile plans). Overall though, the effect is one that is fun rather than disruption of serious drama. Holmes was never supposed to be naturalistic storytelling, it is after all not a police procedural but an adventure story - most of Holmes’s stories do begin with ‘The Adventure of...’.

The onscreen text isn’t the only thing that makes Sherlock unique. Incredible crime solvers are ten-a-penny on TV. Most are dysfunctional, some are George Gently, but seeing a sociopathic, drug-taking yet brilliant detective is certainly nothing new. Thankfully Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss didn’t decide to stick their Sherlock in a deerstalker just to make him ‘eccentric’ instead they settled on an individual with almost no social awareness.

Luckily for viewers, Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance wasn’t a sort of comically inept Larry David when presented with company, he’s in fact down right rude, never considering the implications of his insights and utterances until it’s too late. It’s an interesting take, Holmes is usually polite after all, Brett’s manners in the role were impeccable. Instead Cumberbatch’s Holmes seems to exhibit some ennui with twenty-first century life - he doesn’t care what you have to say, he doesn’t want to talk about it, but he will post something on his website later.

It’s this shut-off, impolite aspect to Sherlock that differentiates him from not one, but two Doctors.

Doctor John Watson is ably performed by Martin Freeman whose characterisation is, at its best, compelling, human and vulnerable. At its worst Freeman’s head jerks about the screen like a coked-up Blue Tit. Hopefully with time Freeman will give his performance more of Watson’s much-loved resolve in the face of danger and his maverick colleague. Together the two are a delight. Often listless, flirting with homosexuality, two men in their thirties still living like students. It’s very Withnail and I. They clearly hold a growing love and respect for each other and yet often can’t bare to be cooped up in the same flat together. And of course, Watson fulfils the important role of allowing the mischievous Holmes to show-off when making his deductions.

The other Doctor that Sherlock had to distance itself from was Doctor Who. Both Moffat and Gattiss have much experience writing Who and so were always going to bring TARDIS-shaped baggage to the show. However they cleverly took the good bits that have made Who a success - namely the pace and the humour. They were careful not to make their lead too Doctor like, as Russell T Davies explained the Doctor should be your best friend - resourceful, crazy and loads of fun to be with. Sherlock Holmes should be, and is, darker as a character - the high-functioning sociopath who you enjoy reading about, but wouldn’t necessarily want to go for a pint with.

It would be trite, however to describe Sherlock as ‘Doctor Who for adults’. Neither is it a wacky version of Waking the Dead or Spooks. Rather it seems to be closer to earlier telefantasy - a reined-in version of The Avengers. You only had to watch the fantastically manic sequence of Holmes and Watson being attacked by a nine-foot tall killer called the Golem in a planetarium lit by psychedelic strobe lights where Holst’s Planets Suite was cut-up and rewound as backing music to realise that the sixties and seventies inventiveness of fantastic television was something Moffat and Gatiss were keen to capture.

Finally, every great hero needs a great villain. It was a little puzzling to see Moriarty therefore portrayed as a camp Irish goblin in a suit. Supposedly threatening it suddenly seemed Andrew Scott’s voice was reliving some adolescent trauma. He was giggling and ridiculous. For me this was the only real let-down to these three excellent films, which succeeded in bring Holmes up to date. Despite ending on a cliffhanger, the look that Sherlock gives Watson in those final crucial moments, gave you hope that these two were going to be back - it was written across the screen for all to see.

John Rivers is an award-winning digital marketing bod who lives in North London with his cat. A long time movie and TV fan, he writes a rather 'Angry' blog about Doctor Who, while also moderating on Gallifrey Base, the net's biggest Doctor Who forum. In a monster smackdown, he'd be on Gamera's side.

If you would like to submit a guest post, please use the contact form.