I think this is especially apparent when comparing the Guy Richie version of Sherlock Holmes with the BBC television version called "Sherlock." When I saw the movie "Sherlock Holmes" I was looking forward to a fun mystery with a great actor and a creative director. In the first half of the movie that's exactly what I got. The music was exciting, the story was interesting, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law had great chemistry and looked like they were having great fun playing Holmes and Watson; it was a refreshing new take on an old story. And then, to my dissappointment, the story was taken over by special effects. It seemed that the movie just became one impossible action sequence followed by the next. I am really hoping that the next movie of Sherlock Holmes concentrates more on the mystery and interesting characters. There's a lot of potentional especially when you look at who's in it. It has some great actors like Noomi Rapace, the original Lisbeth from the Millineum trilogy movies, and Jared Harris, or Lane Price- the British guy from Mad Men. I sure hope they use these skilled actors talents and concentrate less on the special effects.
In contrast, the BBC version called "Sherlock" is the smartest, most interesting and fun versions of Sherlock I have ever seen. In my mind Benedict Cumberbatch is exactly what Sherlock should be. Tall and lanky with high cheek bones and a weak chin, he exudes oddness. And, in comparison with Jude Law, Martin Freeman is much more relatable as Watson. The two actors play off each other perfectly and are given time to flesh out their roles so that they are what carry the stories- not the action.
The modernization of "Sherlock" also gives a breath of fresh air into the Holmes story. Set in modern London I have noticed just how much the city plays a role in the show. Sherlock and Watson zip around the city in a taxi passing the London tower, the Museum of Contemporary Art and the Thames. Modern technology like cell phones and computers are constantly being used through out and are so central to the stories now that it's hard to imagine Holmes solving crimes without them. Overall, "Sherlock" has taken a genre which I have never been all the crazy about and made it fascinatingly entertaining.
I am so impressed with certain television shows right now that when I think about what I'd like to watch 90 % of the time it is some tv show.
My top television series are:
The Sopranos- there is no doubt that it is the greatest acheivement in television history so far.
Mad Men- Wonderful acting and great characters. A fascinating look at the 60's in America. Superb on all levels.
Sherlock- for all the reasons I listed above.
Battlestar Gallactica- Tom and I watched this series together and enjoyed every minute of it (which is saying something because Sci Fi is not my favorite genre)
4 comments:
I think there are several reasons why recent TV shows have vastly better writing than their cinematic counterparts. Off the top of my head I can see an inherent difference in nature way characters are revealed in TV and film, as well as the different ways in which each reaches the audience.
Films must have mass appeal if they are to be successful because most members of the audience will only see it once. Thus, the reliance on spectacle, special effects, and the catering to the lowest common denominator to draw as many viewers in as possible for their single viewing. Solid writing and character development are secondary to mass appeal. Unfortunately, that is what Hollywood is all about now.
Television is intended to reach a select audience over a repeated period of time (multiple episodes over multiple weeks). The aim is to have viewers tune in week after week…and one of the ways to draw people back is to give the slow reveal of the characters – tune in next week when we find out whether Joan is pregnant with Roger’s baby or if Apollo is going to space Sharon, etc.
The multiple hours and episodes of a television show allows for the writers to be slightly more creative in how the traits of each character are revealed. As each episode is aired, the psychological qualities of each character are slowly revealed, allowing the audience to get to know the characters over a period of time. This closely mimics the way that we get to know someone in real life.
With film, the writers have approximately 2 hours to tell the entire story and reveal the character. A film is self-contained and assumes that the audience knows nothing about the characters when they sit down in the cinema. Therefore, only impressions and basic traits of the characters are revealed. And even films with the best writing (No Country for Old Men comes to mind) do not allow a deep peak to the psyche of the characters.
Don Draper or Starbuck would not be nearly so captivating if all that we learn over the course of a single season was crammed into a two hour film. On the flip side, Anton Chigurh and Hannibal Lecter might become less captivating if the writers spent more time delving into their psyches instead of giving the audience a fairly surface (but extremely jarring) impression of the characters. The more time we spend with a character, the more human they become…and for some characters, it undercuts the effectiveness of the intended impression.
When I first heard that Guy Ritchie was helming a Sherlock Holmes movie, my greatest fear was the was going to have Jason Statham doing a narration as Watson and it be less a traditional Sherlock Holmes than a fast-talking heist film with a bad-ass martial-artsy Sherlock Holmes. Going into the Guy Ritchie film, I was a pleasantly surprised by the first half of the film. Many the lesser-known qualities of Sherlock were now being amplified (bare-knuckled boxing, slovenly bohemian lifestyle) and he was rightly transformed into an intelligent, but gritty action-oriented protagonist. The second half of the film was a supreme disappointment with action sequence after action sequence with an explosion that should have killed Watson and the anti-climactic climax on top of the unfinished (and very obviously CGI) Tower bridge. Another disappointment for me is that the intelligence of the Holmes was never realized. If one is going to ramp-up the action and physical traits, one must also portray Holmes as being just that much more intelligent in order to compensate. This was not done, much to the disservice of the character (and film). Even so, as a Sherlockian, I was pleased that this was a Holmes that could speak to (and create fans from) the new generation…even if it was in this dumbed-down form.
Then I saw the BBC’s Sherlock and everything changed. It reminded me that Holmes not need appear in a dumb-down form to reach audiences. All that was needed is to remove him from the foggy Victorian London and put him in the modern world with the benefits of current technology and sensibilities. Instead of pussy-footing around the idea of Holmes and Watson being misconstrued as lovers, they confronted the idea in a very effective tongue-in-cheek manner. Hansom cabs and two-wheelers are now replaced with London Taxis that shuttle Holmes and the good doctor to and fro. Holmes’ reliance on his gazette, encyclopedias, and shelves of scrap-books is now replaced by his smart-phone. Watson’s journals are now a blog. Holmes browbeats everybody with his intelligence to push his point home. Pretty much everything pertaining to the characterization of Holmes and Watson is from the original Canon, but done with a modern twist. The creativity involved is off-the-charts. This is what good writing and characterization is all about – the stories draw you in and make you want more.
But, pertaining to your original thoughts, this series would never survive as film because it lacks the mass-appeal to draw in the initial audience and the character development is not conducive to a stand-alone film (the introduction/reveal of Mycroft from the pilot would be considered campy and a waste of time, as many of the elements from the other stories).
On a side note, I also have to say that I am pleased that you have added BSG to your watch-list. I loved the series until the final episode, which (like the third Matrix film) seems to undercut the philosophy of the series. Baltar is an amazingly written character.
IF you can handle adding yet another Sci-fi show on your watch-list, I would recommend the new version of Doctor Who. The co-creator of the BBC’s Sherlock, Steven Moffett, is the show-runner for Seasons 5 and 6 (and beyond) of Doctor Who. He is also responsible for several of the best-written episodes from the first 4 seasons (including “Blink,” featuring Carey Mulligan and “The Girl in the Fireplace”). Check it out!
Monica- I like the point your made about Chigur and Hannibal being less captivating if we had to spend more time with them.
I agree that it is impossible for movies to be able to contain everything a tv show can tell. Two or so hours means it must be a different medium.
That being said, (and as you said), lately movies have often lost track of any story or characterization. They seem to be so dummed down that they don't use the two hours to show well rounded and complex characters. I think in one hour of a show like Gallactica or Mad Men we get more well rounded characters in comparison to most two hour movies.
While tv has the time the stretch out a plot, it still shouldn't mean that movies should be less concerned with good scripts. Yes, movies have only two hours, but I still think character development is taking a backseat to faster and more captivating story lines and effects.
At Christmas time my dad and I watched movies from the 1960s and 70s such as Repulsion, Marathon Man, All the Presidents Men, and an average Sean Connery movie. I found that the screenplays to these movies were much smarter and well written compared to most movies coming out now.
It seems that audiences were smarter and more willing to handle more difficult and complex films thus better films were made for mass audiences. Plus, everything is changing with special effects. For me Avatar is a great example of this. Without 3D I found the movie long and boring. If they had concentrated on the story as much as they had the special effects it would have been fabulous.
Filmmakers are catering to who the audience is (as you said) and that's my frustration with movies lately.
Anyway, thanks for your comments. I enjoyed reading them and loved hearing about the Sherlocks from someone who knows....well, everything there is to know!
Post a Comment