Smarter than a gibbering idiot =/= smart
Aug. 13th, 2010 12:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
donnaimmaculataTwo weeks ago, I compared the BBC drama Sherlock with the itv drama Identity, and my verdict was that Sherlock is the better production. Now that I have watched all three Sherlock episodes, I have reviewed my judgement; Identity wins, hands down.
It wins not only because the recurring characters are allowed to be female as well as of other ethnicities than caucasian, and yet they are no stereotypes and no idiots (!). But it also wins because Sherlock works on the premise that every character apart from Sherlock and, occasionally, Watson, is so stupid and incompetent that it makes you wonder how they ever managed to get and hold a job.
I'm not a Sherlock Holmes expert by any stretch, but wasn't the point of the original stories to make Sherlock Holmes smart by having him think outside the box? The box as established in the Victorian age, that is. It is my understanding that Sherlock Holmes was very much a man of his age - hence his dodgy white-Englishman attitute towards women, foreigners, PoC etc. - but, unlike the average man of his age, smart enough to understand and utilise the new and then not commonly used science of forensics.
100 years later, it doesn't work like that. In order to adapt Sherlock Holmes, he should have been a man of his age again, with all that it entails (an updated attitute towards women, foreigners, PoC etc. being part of it), yet smart enough to use additional, new science/technology that is not part of standard police procedure.
As it is, the makers made Sherlock Holmes smart by dumbing down everyone else to unbearable levels. The police are so useless at their job that one could think shows like CSI et al, Quincy or McCallum (a British television show about a pathologist who solves crimes by looking at the evidence *gasp*) had never graced our television screens. Even in the deepest province of rural England, Inspector Barnaby consults a forensic specialist who tells him all about how the victim was killed. He doesn't need a freelance consulting detective who, in turn, drags some random doctor friend to the scene of the crime to tell him what kind of weapon was used and how long the victim had been dead. Every single police or detective show includes a forensic team, because that's pretty much standard procedure, and most of them tend to be competent at their job.
It would not have been standard procedure at the time when Sherlock Holmes was written, which is why his approach was unique and, hence, successful.
To adapt that concept for a modern audience*, the writers should have come up with a new, groundbreaking skill that Sherlock Holmes deploys to solve crime. Instead, they decided to make everyone else an idiot, unable to perform well in a specialist field they had trained in.
At least Identity offers an explanation for the lead male's unique skill that he deploys to solve crime. And while it, too, has a scene with a dead body sitting in the fridge, it is much more interesting, poignant and, yes, chilling.
*I say that, but the modern audience loves the show. So what do I know?
It wins not only because the recurring characters are allowed to be female as well as of other ethnicities than caucasian, and yet they are no stereotypes and no idiots (!). But it also wins because Sherlock works on the premise that every character apart from Sherlock and, occasionally, Watson, is so stupid and incompetent that it makes you wonder how they ever managed to get and hold a job.
I'm not a Sherlock Holmes expert by any stretch, but wasn't the point of the original stories to make Sherlock Holmes smart by having him think outside the box? The box as established in the Victorian age, that is. It is my understanding that Sherlock Holmes was very much a man of his age - hence his dodgy white-Englishman attitute towards women, foreigners, PoC etc. - but, unlike the average man of his age, smart enough to understand and utilise the new and then not commonly used science of forensics.
100 years later, it doesn't work like that. In order to adapt Sherlock Holmes, he should have been a man of his age again, with all that it entails (an updated attitute towards women, foreigners, PoC etc. being part of it), yet smart enough to use additional, new science/technology that is not part of standard police procedure.
As it is, the makers made Sherlock Holmes smart by dumbing down everyone else to unbearable levels. The police are so useless at their job that one could think shows like CSI et al, Quincy or McCallum (a British television show about a pathologist who solves crimes by looking at the evidence *gasp*) had never graced our television screens. Even in the deepest province of rural England, Inspector Barnaby consults a forensic specialist who tells him all about how the victim was killed. He doesn't need a freelance consulting detective who, in turn, drags some random doctor friend to the scene of the crime to tell him what kind of weapon was used and how long the victim had been dead. Every single police or detective show includes a forensic team, because that's pretty much standard procedure, and most of them tend to be competent at their job.
It would not have been standard procedure at the time when Sherlock Holmes was written, which is why his approach was unique and, hence, successful.
To adapt that concept for a modern audience*, the writers should have come up with a new, groundbreaking skill that Sherlock Holmes deploys to solve crime. Instead, they decided to make everyone else an idiot, unable to perform well in a specialist field they had trained in.
At least Identity offers an explanation for the lead male's unique skill that he deploys to solve crime. And while it, too, has a scene with a dead body sitting in the fridge, it is much more interesting, poignant and, yes, chilling.
*I say that, but the modern audience loves the show. So what do I know?
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-13 10:52 am (UTC)I couldn't work out what felt so wrong about a modern day thing, but you are right.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-13 11:06 am (UTC)(I'm still gonna watch it and probably read the porn, though).
no subject
Date: 2010-08-13 11:36 am (UTC)I've recently rewatched The League of Gentlemen. That was some pretty good and suspense-filled writing there. Oh, Mark Gatiss, what happened to you?
no subject
Date: 2010-08-13 11:44 am (UTC)It is very watchable, if only because of the excellent production value. It looks like a really good show. Shame the plots and characters are so stupid.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-13 01:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-13 01:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-13 01:47 pm (UTC)The writers (a) aren't that smart or (b) are too lazy.
Surely, surely the police could have gotten around the blocked number and tracked the shit out of that cellphone.
I wish they would have gotten Lestrade to feed Sherlock information via suspect interviews, evidence found, etc., so he could make those great leaps of logic he's so good at. But I guess the writers figured it would take away from Watson's importance, so all Lestrade gets to do is stand around looking starry eyed. :/
(That said, I still watch it.)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-13 02:02 pm (UTC)Exactly. To write someone who is smarter than average, the author must be smarter than average, too. At least in one specialist field.
Surely, the police would have noticed that the left-handed banker didn not shoot himself. Even I know that they always check for gunshot residue on the victim's hands.
Lestrade was so underused. Rupert Graves probably took a good look at the scripts and got out of the contract asap.
(I watch it, too, because it looks really good. And I like both BC and MF.)