Sherlocked!

As you may remember, a few of my first posts were on the topic of Sherlock Holmes:

Sherlock Holmes on the Stage! on a production of A Study in Scarlet that I went to. It's also a bit of a character commentary on Watson.

and

Holmes vs. Dupin: The Ultimate Detective Face-Off, a pretty long post, but one of my best. :-)

So now we will return to the topic of Holmes. Specifically, the interpretation of Holmes in BBC's Sherlock. 

I recently saw all six episodes of the first two seasons in a space of about two weeks (and am enthusiastically waiting for Season 3 to come out, and searching amongst my friends for someone with cable TV who doesn't mind me descending on them to watch Sherlock whenever it's on). As you can probably tell from that parenthesis, I did think quite highly of the show, for a few particular reasons.

The stories of Sherlock Holmes have been done so many times in film and TV - and actually a couple times well - that you almost expect a bit of deviation from the story. Also, there are 60 stories original stories about him, so it's easy to pick a few elements from a couple different stories and come up with a completely new one. 

Sherlock is set currently, which automatically gives the adapters the challenge of putting a modern spin on the original stories. I thought that they did it well, giving us a Sherlock for the 21st century that was not old-fashioned, and yet still embodied the essence of Holmes. Holmes of the 19th century sends telegrams, whereas Sherlock prefers to text. However, the message is the same: "Come at once if convenient. If inconvenient, come anyway. -SH"

Sherlock also gave me a bit of hope for the modern detective. Every time after reading some of the stories, I would try to figure stuff out about people sitting across from me on the train. I couldn't deduce a single thing, and chalked it up to an assumption that people show less nowadays than they did in the 1800's. In the 19th century, they wore things like top hats with bands that could show hair grease, or used walking sticks that could be worn away in certain places. Well, Sherlock made me think about this again, and I now realize that deductions of this kind are completely possible in a modern day society. My lack of abilities has nothing do to with the changing times. I'm just stupid, that's all. (So is almost everyone else, compared to Holmes, actually.)

In a portrayal of Sherlock for a modern audience, it's almost necessary to repeat over and over that no, Sherlock and John are not a couple. John is straight (he ends up getting married in the books) and Sherlock is - well... Sherlock is just a sort of neutral entity, I suppose, in the world of love. Love is truly "not his area," as he says in the first episode. In the books, when Watson remarks on the beauty of a client, Holmes tells him he just sees her as a client - that's all - he only noticed her beauty as it pertained to the case. 

I was a little nervous during the episode with Irene Adler, because I didn't want the filmmakers to go too far with the romance just to show that Irene Adler was "The Woman" for Holmes. Yes, he respected her abilities. Yes, he might have had a teeny crush on her. But no, he did not love her. He cannot love romantically - it is not in his nature. He loves Watson, as a friend. He loves Mrs. Hudson, almost as a son. But he will never love in the romantic sense. He is incapable of it.

I got even more nervous when I saw him fondling her hand in front of his fireplace, but then it all worked out - wonderfully! (No spoilers here! You should watch it.)

As we're on the topic of crushes and romance, let's talk a little about Molly, the lady at St. Bart's Hospital where Sherlock does his research - beating up cadavers to see how long bruises can be produced after death and the like. I think she's adorable and awesome and she makes me feel bad that Sherlock has no idea of romantic love because they would be the best couple. (But no, they shouldn't get together because that would defeat the purpose of Holmes.) And talking about them coupling, I don't think that at the end when Molly asks, "What do you need?" and Sherlock says, "You," he means her in the physical sense. He means he needs her to help him get out of his predicament, because she's the only one that still believes in him (other than Watson, but he can't do much at the moment). Sherlock realizes that she's always been on his side, helping him - not just being a neutral player in the game, but actually on his side. She's just as important as Watson, in a sense, and can help him in different ways than Watson can. I believe that Molly will be a main player in the resolution of the climax that ended Season 2. (Again, no spoilers. I'm trying super hard because I really want to just spill it all out there. Go watch it, and then we can talk.)

Molly isn't really in the books; however, I really like her character, as you can tell. If Irene Adler was "The Woman," to Holmes, Molly is sort of a kinder, calmer, less aggressive version of that in Sherlock's world. It's cool that they added a character like that.

This post is getting really long, but I'd like to talk a little bit about John Watson. Here's a quote from a previous post:

 I highly dislike the bumbling portrayals of Watson in the Basil Rathbone films. Watson is not an idiot. He's a highly trained doctor. Watson is not clumsy. And Watson is not old. At all. Both Holmes and Watson are actually in their twenties in the first book. 

John Watson in Sherlock is a legitimate portrayal of Conan Doyle's Watson. He is young-ish and decently smart (not on the Sherlockian scale, though. No one except for Moriarity, Microft, and Sherlock himself are smart on the Sherlockian scale. Irene Adler gets a B+, maybe). He also is a true Character - not just the sidekick that shows of the awesomeness of the superhero. He's a real person, with flaws and talents, just as Sherlock is a real person with his own flaws.
Sherlock is not a superhero. He's an unsympathetic, occasionally deprecatory addict who is very ADD. Maybe it's lucky that love is not his area. It would be hard to be his girlfriend, and probably harder to be his wife.

~Sophia

Have you seen Sherlock? Did you like it? Have you read the books - how do you think they compare? Let me know in the comments - I would be happy to discuss "resurrection" theories with you! :-)

Holmes vs. Dupin: The Ultimate Detective Face-Off

C. Auguste Dupin

Sherlock Holmes

Everyone knows who Sherlock Holmes is. You might have discovered him directly through Conan Doyle's great stories. Or, more probably, you saw a film version of one of his many adventures, or his newest screen appearance - BBC's Sherlock. And there are numerous other references to the great detective in our daily lives. Do you know who Sherlock Holmes is? "Elementary, my dear Watson."

Trivia time! Holmes never says the above phrase, though he does say "Elementary," in The Crooked Man, and "...my dear Watson," a few lines before.

Recently, however, I discovered that Sherlock, though he may be the most well known, was not, by far, the first of his kind. Doyle may have made famous the detective with the clever mind, the discerning eye, and the occasional dry humor, but he only developed what had come before.
Who was Holmes's predecessor? The clue is in the text. In the first-ever Sherlock Holmes story, A Study In Scarlet, Dr Watson comments:

"You remind me of Edgar Allan Poe's Dupin. I had no idea that such individuals did exist outside of stories." 

Sherlock Homes rose and lit his pipe. 

"No doubt you think that you are complimenting me in comparing me to Dupin," he observed. "Now, in my opinion, Dupin was a very inferior fellow. That trick of his of breaking in on his friends' thoughts with an apropos remark after a quarter of an hour's silence is really very showy and superficial. He had some analytical genius, no doubt; but he was by no means such a phenomenon as Poe appeared to imagine."

I have the Complete Works of Poe on my shelf, so I was curious to find out about this Dupin fellow, of whom Holmes speaks so disparagingly. Turns out, Poe only wrote three stories starring Dupin: The Murders in the Rue Morgue, The Mystery of Marie Roget, and The Purloined Letter. These three short stories are narrated by a friend of Dupin's - a sort of Dr. Watson character - who's name is never revealed. I won't talk much about the plots of the stories - I highly recommend that you read them yourself - but here is my analysis  regarding Dupin, his methods, and his comparison to Holmes.

Firstly, I found that the stories could be classified in the following manner: Rue Morgue was quite an adventure story, and rather similar to Sherlock Holmes. Marie Roget was very analytical, as Dupin not only got all of his clues from the newspaper, he never left the comfort of his home or exerted himself physically in any way. The Purloined Letter could be called a mixture of the two, having some action, but less than in Rue Morgue.
However, overall, I found Dupin to be much less active than Holmes, even in Rue Morgue. In both Rue Morgue and Purloined Letter, Dupin does go out to do some investigating, but all in all, he and his unnamed friend are rather secluded on the outskirts of the town, and get most of their information from the newspaper. Though Holmes does have his pensive moments of excessive smoking and violin playing, he is much more of a part of society than Dupin.

Before I go on, I must make the point that in no way did I not like Dupin or the aforementioned three stories in which he appears. My opinion was quite the opposite. And though it may sound as though I have much to say in favor of Holmes and even some against Dupin, I must say that in Dupin's day, the term detective had not yet originated. Dupin was the first of his kind. He was not a professional "Consulting Detective" like Holmes. It must have been hard to get permission to look over a crime scene such as the one in Rue Morgue without being in the police force. Dupin's character was a very unique idea at the time. Highest commendations to Poe!

We continue.

One thing that I find very strikingly different between Dupin and Holmes is that Holmes is much more of a Character. Dupin is not as a well rounded Character as Holmes. This may come of the fact that Holmes is in sixty stories, and Dupin is in three. But even in A Study in Scarlet, Sherlock's debut appearance, Holmes is more fully developed in that one novel (an extremely short one, though) then Dupin is in his entire literary existence (disregarding fan fiction, of course). We know that Holmes plays violin, smokes a pipe, is an excellent shot, enjoys boxing and wrestling, has an excellent knowledge of the theatre, and doesn't know that  the earth goes around the sun. (Yeah, Watson was amazed at that last one, too...)
But Dupin? Can't say that much for him. Sure, he has an excellent mind. Yes, he likes seclusion. He definitely enjoys reading the newspaper. But what else? I suspect that at least he knows the structure of our solar system. :-)

And talking about developed characters, what of Dupin's friend with no name? Watson is as clear a character as Holmes (though many times portrayed in film incorrectly - but that's for another post). We know about his past in the wars, his medical practice, his married life - but we know practically nothing of the Unnamed Fellow. It seems as though the Unnamed Fellow is just there to marvel at Dupin's wisdom and perspicacity, similar to Watson in many film versions.

But despite these differences, there are quite a few similarities. They both like to freak people out by their uncanny perception abilities (despite this being what Holmes so disparagingly accused Dupin of in the quote in the beginning of this post). They both like to show off their knowledge. They both have to deal with the rather dull police. They both agree that the right method is to put themselves in the mind of the criminal, and both use this method time and time again:

Watson/Unnamed Fellow/Unbelieving Observer: "But there is no way out! The criminal couldn't have escaped!"

Holmes/Dupin: "But he did, for we searched the room and he is not here. Therefore, he must have gotten out somehow, or is hiding in some secret place we didn't think of.  Now, if you were the criminal, what would you have done?..."

...and so on and so forth.

I believe that I am slightly biased in that I was raised on Sherlock Holmes and just recently discovered Monsieur C. Auguste Dupin. I have seen no films with the French detective (though I am sure there are many), and the fact that there are only three of his books makes him rather less widely known. However, am very glad that I found him, as I am sincerely greatful to Poe for introducing the genre of detective stories, without which Holmes would never have existed. Once again: highest commendations to Poe!

And talking about detectives before Holmes, has anyone heard of Sergeant Cuff? From Wilkie Collins' Moonstone? Regarded as the first true British detective?

Hmmm... I feel another round of "The Ultimate Detective Face-Off" is near at hand!

~Sophia

Sherlock Holmes on the Stage!

I have a big post coming about Sherlock Holmes soon... stay tuned.
But before I finish that, I thought I'd let you know about the play I saw today, since it's rather related.
It was A Study in Scarlet, performed by Promethean Theatre Ensemble, and quite excellent.

NEXT AT PROMETHEAN...

A Study in Scarlet

written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
directed by Paul Edwards

MAY 3 - JUN 1, 2013
Thursday - Saturday 8pm
Sunday 2pm

Opening Night
FRI MAY 3, 2013 at 8pm

www.prometheantheatre.org

If you don't know, A Study in Scarlet is the first of the Sherlock Holmes stories, where he and Dr. Watson are introduced to each other. It is the first of their adventures as a team, and the reader's first glimpse into the depths of the remarkable character that is Holmes. I have read the entire collection of stories twice, some more than that, so as you may guess, I was very excited.

I must say, it truly surpassed my expectations. I had not read the book in a while (because I was busy rereading the The Three Musketeers, as we are going to see a play of that in June). However, I had a decent memory of the plot, and as I watched the play, I remembered more. As far as I can tell, they did more than justice to Doyle's work.

The actual theatre helped a lot. I always say that straight plays are better done in intimate theatres, as opposed to musicals or operas, which require a large stage for the ensembles. This theatre was excellent in that there were only 80 seats, so we were able to see everything, down to the expressions on the actors' faces.

One thing that I highly commend the theatre company for is their disregard for the stereotypes of the characters of Watson and Holmes, and their loyalty to Doyle's original description. I highly dislike the bumbling portrayals of Watson in the Basil Rathbone films. Watson is not an idiot. He's a highly trained doctor. Watson is not clumsy. And Watson is not old. At all. Both Holmes and Watson are actually in their twenties in the first book. And this production respected that. The actors who played Holmes and Watson were young, possibly in their late twenties, early thirties. And the fellow playing Watson was actually taller than Holmes, handsome, and not a bit fat or bumbling. Quite elegant. It was all very refreshing.

The actor playing Holmes was excellent as well - observant, astute, rather full of himself, and somewhat hyper and high strung. Perfect! Lestrade and Gregson (the Scotland Yard detectives) were spectacular as well - especially Gregson, who was more full of himself than Holmes, if that's possible.

All in all, it was a spectacular production. If you can, you should go see it - you will enjoy it tremendously.

In the meantime, stay tuned for my next post on Holmes. It should be coming no later than Tuesday.

~Sophia