The Many Faces of Sherlock Holmes . . . Sherlock and Elementary Review

"Elementary, my dear Watson."  We all know that phrase.  It's about as iconic as "All work and no play."  It also signals a revolution in the way stories are told, and the function of characters in a story.  While Poe might have Sir Arthur Conan Doyle beat by a few years, with the first detective story, Sherlock Holmes cemented the archetypes, tropes and general feel of detective stories until the present day.  The genius of Sherlock Holmes resides in his irascibility.  To put it bluntly, he's not a very likeable character.  Short tempered, arrogant, and a drug-addict, Sherlock Holmes represented a fundamentally different perspective on what we want in a hero.  We want him to succeed where others fail, especially if those others are representatives of a government or other authority.

The recent success of Sherlock Holmes in a variety of mediums has demonstrated the continued enjoyment we all derive from him.  Robert Downey Jr. is the iconic Sherlock of the modern era, one of the truest expressions of Doyle's know-it-all detective.  But that Sherlock is set in the era in which it was written, namely the late nineteenth century.  The question has been asked: Would Sherlock still be applicable in the modern era?  That is, in the light of DNA, fingerprinting (largely unknown to Doyle), a pervasive CCTV culture (if you set him in London), cell phones, lap-tops, instant access to boundless information via the Internet, would Sherlock still triumph?

According to "Sherlock," produced by the BBC and starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes and Martin Freeman, he can.  Not only that, he excels where Scotland Yard and London police fail precisely because of all those technological trappings.  The argument is that modern forensics have become so indoctrinated by their CSI gadgets that they've forgotten how to look at the evidence in front of them and use the computer God installed behind their eyes.  Cumberbatch's Sherlock is arrogant to the point of offensive, and know-it-all to the point of omniscience.  Yet the show makes a surprising effort to show the connections that Sherlock makes, highlighting the fact that he is far from superhuman, simply superhumanly observant.

Each episode is comprised of roughly an hour and a half and the extra time shows.  With nearly two shows packed in one, each episode unfolds like a movie, with time for witty dialogue and gradual reveals that aren't apparent from the beginning.  The principals, Cumberbatch and Freeman are convincing and drawn with a delicate brush that paints their relationship in subtle colors.  Most of the episodes (possibly all) are taken from the Doyle cannon, and updated to serve the story.  Hound of the Baskervilles makes an appearance, as does Irene Adler, the only woman famously to snare Sherlock Holmes.  It is intelligent, fun, and dangerously addictive.  Watch it only if you've got a few hours set aside to catch up on the whole thing at once.  Highly recommended.

Once you've taken care of Sherlock in modern London, the next obvious question is: What if he wasn't in London?  The producers of "Elementary," starring Jonny Lee Miller as Sherlock and Lucy Liu as Watson (you read that right) answered that question by transferring Sherlock to New York and teaming him up with a counselor.  While Watson has always served as something of a confidante and counselor for Sherlock, providing a very real human connection, he has never actually been one.  Stretching the limits of creative license, Lucy Liu's Watson is indeed a doctor.  But her role is much more therapeutic than the Watson that Doyle intended.  While Miller's Sherlock is somewhat irritating, it comes across as petulant--throwing tantrums and acting in a generally childish way.  Nothing like the severe abrasiveness that Doyle seemed to have intended. 

Updating Sherlock to the modern era, transplanting him across the pond, and forcing him to deal with a type of violence seemingly unknown in London, "Elementary" further deviates by introducing new story-lines.  So far, neither Moriarty nor Irene Adler have made an appearance, and it's difficult to see how they would.  "Elementary" is a crime-procedural on the level of "CSI" or "Numbers" with a quirky character who bears almost no relation to the inimical Sherlock Holmes.  While the acting is somewhat amusing, the forty-minute run time of each episode restricts the masterful deduction for which Sherlock is known, making him seem nearly god-like in his observational skills.  Worst of all, "Elementary" seems to have copped several lines straight from "Sherlock," undermining its creative cachet.

Both "Sherlock" and "Elementary" pose interesting questions, and at least initially, "Elementary" looks to answer it more creatively and with a different panache.  But "Elementary" falls flat with limpid acting, a lack of creative story-telling and a boring disposition.  Don't waste your time.

Love them?  Hate them?  Let me know in the comments.