Faithful to the Original: Comparing Sherlock and Sherlock Holmes

(This piece has also been published in Proceedings of the Pondicherry Lodge, Vol 1: Issue 1. You can read that version on scribd)

I meant to write this a while ago, when the second season of the BBC TV show Sherlock came out, right after Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. But well, better late than never.

So this question often comes up in my Shakespearean Afterlives course. (Don’t worry, this post isn’t about Shakespeare!) What does it mean for an afterlife, or a contemporary work that derives from some past work, to be faithful to the original source? Film and television has had a revival of interest in Sherlock Holmes in the past few years. To be honest, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Holmes has never quite been out of public gaze (see the numerous Sherlock Holmes adaptations over the years), but a revival of interest for the mainstream and big-budget media is recent. In particular, Guy Ritchie came out with his interpretation of Sherlock as a spunky, funny, action-packed hero, played by the inimitable Robert Downey Jr, fighting villains and saving the world in the 1890s. And then there is the BBC TV series Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss that has received accolades from fans and critics alike. Benedict Cumberbatch plays a savant like Sherlock who is quick to embrace gadgets and modern technology – anything that can help him get closer to catching the bad guys.So which of the two works is closer to the revered and canonized Doyle version of Sherlock Holmes?

The Setting

Ritchie’s Holmes lives in Doyle’s times. The horse-drawn carriages, old-fashioned clothes and hats and the sepia tones paint the picture of Doyle’s London – surprisingly similar to what I imagined the setting to be when I read the short stories. Moffat’s Sherlock, on the other hand, lives in the fast, upbeat London of 2012. The characters travel in taxis, wear jeans talk on their iPhones – more of a setting for Doctor Who than Sherlock Holmes. However, recall that when Doyle wrote his Sherlock Holmes stories, he did not intend it to be a historical piece or a costume drama. Doyle’s Holmes is based not in the past, but in the present, and is in fact shown to be a man of science, gleefully using any new invention or discovery that may help him solve a case, including the recently discovered fingerprints, in a story whose title I don’t remember at the moment. Incidentally, this is picked up by both Ritchie – with his Sherlock shown driving the Ford Model T in a scene – and Moffat – with his Sherlock using SMS, GPS navigation and any other technology that can help. However, while forensics might have seemed cutting edge to the readers of 1890, Holmes driving the Model T is merely a funny scene in Game of Shadows. The horse-drawn carriages are seen as quaint and cute in 2012; they were a way of life in 1890 just like GPS and mobile phones are in 2012. The 2012 audience reaction to Moffat’s Sherlock, then is perhaps closer to what the 1890 audience reaction to Doyle might have been.

Note, however, that the modern reader (you and me) also reads Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. The charm of the old that the book presents for us is perhaps robbed in the  Moffat and Gatiss version. Also, not all plot elements can work as well in a new setting. The photograph in A Scandal in Bohemia becomes a cellphone in A Scandal in Belgravia on the BBC show, since a digital photograph is so much easier to duplicate than a physical photograph of the 1890s. The change in the plot was done smoothly and brilliantly, in my opinion, but the fact that a change was required itself says that the plot wasn’t entirely faithful to Doyle. Or perhaps, since it is merely changing the plot to fit naturally into the contemporary setting, one could argue that it is in fact a faithful adaptation.

Holmes vs Holmes

The Sherlocks

Robert Downey Jr and Benedict Cumberbatch, as Sherlock Holmes

Coming to the characters, both Cumberbatch and Downey Jr. play the same role – the role of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. The character portrayed, however, is entirely different for both. Robert Downey Jr’s Sherlock is an eccentric detective, clever, but ever ready to jump into a brawl. “Holmes is such a weirdo”, commented Downey Jr in an interview with the BBC once, and a weirdo is exactly what his Bohemian, comic Sherlock is. Comic is exactly what the Cumberbatch Sherlock is not. While he has his eccentricities, they tend to accentuate the intensity of the character rather than his funny side. The Bohemian Holmes is very much from Doyle’s text, but making him a comic character is taking it too far, in my opinion. While I thoroughly enjoyed watching The Game of Shadows, Downey doesn’t quite remind me of the short stories that I read so fondly as a child. Benedict Cumberbatch does. Though he uses nicotine patches instead of his pipe and lives in 2012 instead of 1890, he is in essence the Sherlock out of the pages of Arthur Conan Doyle’s books.

Moriarty vs Moriarty

Andrew Scott and Jared Harris, as James Moriarty

Moriarty features only twice in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work. Sherlock Holmes’s respect and fear for him, however, make him a formidable opponent, and is often shown as an arch-enemy by contemporary works. Jared Harris plays the Moriarty of the Doyle books in The Game of Shadows. The master criminal, the mathematical genius – complete with a beard. Jim Moriarty of the BBC series, played by Andrew Scott is markedly different. He isn’t a professor, for one. “Moriarty is usually a rather dull, rather posh villain so we thought someone who was genuinely properly frightening. Someone who’s an absolute psycho”, Steven Moffat said, in an interview for The Guardian.  As in the books, Jim Moriarty commands absolute power in the criminal underworld. An unhinged genius with infinite power – Scott’s Moriarty is truly frightening. Perhaps he is a more relevant villain in 2012. But then, Jared Harris’s Moriarty is fairly frightening as well. Both Harris and Scott play formidable opponents to their respective Sherlocks, and are probably as clever as him. That, I believe, is the essence of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Moriarty, which both characters capture well.

Concluding Remarks

Perhaps faithfulness to the original isn’t a very relevant question. Indeed, I tremendously enjoyed watching both the movies and the TV show, irrespective of the liberties they take with the canonized text. Nonetheless, the differences are interesting to compare and contrast the differences between the three media(book, television and cinema) and the differences between Hollywood and British television. What do you think of the two versions? Which Sherlock did you like better? Which Moriarty did you like more? What about the two Watsons? Let’s discuss this in the comments below.

About these ads

9 thoughts on “Faithful to the Original: Comparing Sherlock and Sherlock Holmes

  1. naman agarwal says:

    Talking about the issue of a Doyle’s plot not perfectly fitting the present day scenario, I did feel that the Hounds of Baskerville was one such plot. That was one episode of Moffat’s series that didn’t particularly go down well with me simply because I thought the plot was forcefully being extended.

    Comparing Sherlocks .. indeed Downey Jr. feels more separated from Good Old Sherlock than Cumberbatch. In fact a noticeable element of a Game of Shadows was the sparseness of the showcasing of Holmes’ deductive prowess, which was aplenty in the TV show as well as in the first movie.

    Another common difference from the original that both adaptations (more in the movies) carry is the use of Irene Adler. Irene Adler in the books had no criminal connections (both adaptations show her to be linked with Moriarty) and Sherlock had no clear romantic interest in her. (The movie goes one step ahead and expresses this interest completely). In fact in literature she appears in the shortest of Sherlock Holmes short stories seemingly resultant of Doyle’s leisurely desire of introducing a woman in his stories

  2. I just HAD to read it :D

    Anyways, I wanted to pitch in about Moriarty; The TV Series show Moriarty and Sherlock to be obsessed with each other, with Moriarty probably a little more obsessed than Sherlock. In the movie, however, I didn’t notice that. Sherlock seemed to be interested just in foiling his plans and there wasn’t too much indication of it getting personal.

    Doyle definitely portrayed Sherlock to be obsessed with Moriarty but I’m not sure if it was the other way round too. Again, one can’t easily say which was more loyal to Doyle.

    • Moriarty’s obsession for Sherlock is kind of like the Joker in The Dark Knight, don’t you think?

      As for the book, here is an excepts from The Final Problem. Moriarty says, “It has been an intellectual treat to me to see the way in which you have grappled with this affair, and I say, unaffectedly, that it would be a grief to me to be forced to take any extreme measure”

      Clearly, he has an admiration for Holmes and his abilities. Whether that amounts to an obsession is an open question. It probably doesn’t.

      On an aside, Moriarty is described as, “…He is extremely tall and thin, his forehead domes out in a white curve, and his two eyes are deeply sunken in this head. He is clean-shaven, pale, and ascetic-looking, retaining something of the professor in his features. His shoulders are rounded from much study, and his face protrudes forward, and is forever slowly oscillating from side to side in a curiously reptilian fashion.” Isn’t much like either of the on-screen Moriarties.

  3. Vijay says:

    I felt that Downey’s potential was not exploited fully in game of shadows, especially the deductive nature found in the book. Benedict on the other hand, looks more in control of his character stressing less on martial arts and more on observation power.

  4. Teja says:

    This is going to get all the more interesting with the newest american TV series slated to hit the air soon : “Elementary” and I believe Watson is played by Lucy Liu – the writers are definitely taking their fair share of liberties with twists, but isnt that a necessary trend as well? After all, Sir Conan Doyle aimed to engage a newspaper readership which awaited the cessation of suspense with each cliffhanger ending and that is very much in line with what spikes TRP ratings with each plot twist show ending.

  5. Elementary is pretty good. It most clearly deviates from Sir Doyle’s works, moving him to present day NY, changing the gender of several characters, etc.

    Johnny Lee Miller’s Sherlock has a lot in common with Cumberpatch. They are both anti-social and obsessed with work, However, Miller’s Sherlock is somewhat unhinged and is still struggling to remain clean from serious drug addiction.

    Personally, I like the two TV portrayals more than Downey’s.
    However, they are all entertaining.
    No need to choose, enjoy them all

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s