Smarter than a gibbering idiot =/= smart
Two 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?