No, rubbish, resign!
Monday, September 30, 2013
http://www.unleashthefanboy.com/news/elementary-better-than-sherlock/72531
Why is "Elementary" better than Sherlock? The answer is that it's not. But let's do a point by point from the original article and see what I can refute.
The Set Up
According to TOA, it's a tie. Elementary scores by making bold casting choices, which means making Watson a woman. Elementary also has a more racially diverse cast than Sherlock.
This is a bit of a surprise, given that London is one of the planet's more diverse cities. It was in Conan Doyle's day too. But I don't see this as a factor. Making Watson Joan instead of John and asian instead of european is meaningless when you understand that Joan Watson is every bit as effective a foil for the New York Holmes that John Watson is for the one in London. It's down to the casting - Lucy Liu is excellent and while the writers have given her a somewhat different Watson to work with, I don't doubt that if they'd done nothing but change Watson's gender she could have carried off playing an Army medic home from Afghanistan.
In fact, I don't see the set up as being particularly something to score points over: both detectives live and work in a metropolis. Elementary doesn't suffer by being in New York any more than Sherlock does for staying in London.
Let's skip to The Casting
Nobody loses points for casting Vinnie Jones as Sebastian Moran. He's not exactly Larry Olivier, but he can do menace and he can do brutality, and he does a number of other things well enough that he's not a drag on the show.
Sherlock's casting is practically perfect. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are rivetting presences and the interplay between them makes the stories come to life. Whenever I have a problem with the way the story is moving, I shut up and watch these two in action, because it never disappoints.
With Cumberbatch to measure up against, you might assume that Jonny Lee Miller might have a tough time. Not a bit of it. Same character, two very different interpretations, both excellent and both - most importantly of all - recognisably Sherlock Holmes. There are times when both men make the rest of the cast fade into the background, because you don't want your eyes anywhere else (and that's a tough thing to do on Sherlock because that cast is very, very good). On Elementary, which is much more of an ensemble piece, you end up watching Miller to see what his Holmes might be thinking or what might have caught his interest.
Lucy Liu and Martin Freeman also provide eminently watchable characters: John Watson gets to resume his mantle as the competent, intelligent military medic injured in action and we're allowed to discover Joan Watson slowly and carefully, getting to know the character all over again.
The supporting cast don't really get much of a presence in Sherlock. I for one could do with a bit more Lestrade, and I was sad to see the back of Moriarty. Assuming, that is, we really have. The regulars on Elementary make the show a little less about a consulting detective and a bit more of a police procedural, which was the last thing TV needed, but given how the characters end up bouncing off Holmes it's avoided becoming a group of people who are the American Holmes's surrogate family and more his support network. Aidan Quinn is always a pleasure to have on screen and does the Baffled Copper bit when he has to, but you always feel that he's turning to Holmes in order to solve things quickly rather than solving them at all.
Representation
I always question this when I see it.
Look, Lucy Liu essentially proves the point that when you have the right actor, their gender and ethnicity really don't matter. They become non-issues. In the same way that Doctor Who could have a woman or a not-white-bloke in the lead role, and in the same way that Bond could be any shade of male, Holmes and Watson could be any ethnicity.
However, to cast people specifically to tick boxes is a worrying thing, and to cast someone because of their ethnicity is close to being stunt casting.
The problem is, a lot of characters on the TV and in films at the moment come from stories written by white folks about white folks. And this is because the majority of people in Europe, at least, when those stories were being written were...white folks.
It's not anyone's fault that this is the case.
What we should be doing is looking to the current crop of up and coming writers and encouraging them to write about where they are from and what they know. We can look back into recent history and find some writers who have already done this, get their work on the stage and the screen. We viewers and media consumers can remind the production companies and - really importantly - the advertisers and money people - that we will watch a show that we love no matter which demographic the lead actors are from and that making brave choices only really creates more fans.
It shouldn't be about ticking boxes. It should be about reminding the folks in charge that we need heroes; if you get the right writer and the right actor that hero can be from anywhere and played by anyone.
There's another element to this. Role models are important. When I was a kid and was looking for someone to be like, I had The Doctor to look up to. For this generation of kids, it would be great if they too felt they could look up to The Doctor, or Sherlock Holmes, or John/Joan Watson. But it would be even better if they had a broader choice and if some of those heroes looked like they grew up in the same place as the viewers. I honestly believe if you pick the right actor and give them the right material, ALL of the audience will become fans and their gender and ethnicity will be the last things on anyone's minds.
So this is a non-category.
The Woman Problem
Irene Adler is always going to be an issue.
On the one hand, there's the Stephen Moffat take on The Woman.
Originally, The Woman is a grifter who out-maneuvers Holmes and for whom he develops respect and admiration. The original Sherlock Holmes would no more have considered a sexual relationship with Adler than he would with John Watson.
Moffat's Irene Adler is apparently operating under the instructions of James Moriarty, which undercuts her power as a character and removes some of her agency. I disagree that she's working to Moriarty's script. I think she shows herself to be quite adept at improvising and keeping herself secure without the intervention of Moriarty - although it's nice to think that she's aware of who he is and sells him things occasionally. I also think that people overlook the scene where Adler greets Sherlock naked.
In that scene, Sherlock doesn't focus on her nakedness or on her body. He's not interested in either. He doesn't get flustered because he can see boobs, he gets flustered because he can't see any of the clues and cues which will help him establish his intelligence. She turns up naked and, for a lot of non-standard reasons - Sherlock has nothing to say.
I have a bit of a problem with how, at the end of the story, she's rescued. I would have preferred her to rescue herself (maybe with Sherlock turning up a few seconds late and observing the escape, or aiding her departure), but again you have to understand the motivation of the character. I think Sherlock decides to rescue her to demonstrate that he believes she's his equal, because he's been consistently outplayed and out-thought so it's his one chance to show that he's as good as he claims to be.
However, this is less than clear and it leaves a lot of the interaction between Adler and Holmes hard to interpret. My belief is that Adler is playing with Holmes all the way along. In him she might have found someone interesting - in the same way that Gregory House finds people interesting if they are a challenge or as difficult as he is. Irene Adler, therefore, has found something she lacks: a friend, someone she can have an actual conversation with. Someone who might understand her view of the world and the people in it without backing away and looking for the exit. She might want to sleep with women, but this doesn't preclude the possibility of falling in love with a man.
And here, English lets us down a bit. Love and sex are not the same thing. Love doesn't necessarily need to be gender determined, and it's a bit retrograde of people to say that just because Irene is a lesbian she's incapable of finding Sherlock attractive or incapable of falling in love with him. It all depends on what sort of love we're talking about.
I think some critics have jumped at the idea of Adler fancying Holmes because:
a) they do
b) they have an axe to grind (on Moffat, it seems)
c) it seems like the sane and sensible reaction for these two characters.
Nah. Far more likely is that Adler and Holmes have found someone who thinks like they do and this is fascinating. The attraction between them is based on how cool it is to see yourself from the outside, to see how good you are and to see yourself as others must surely see you.
This is where Elementary gets the relationship dead right. Holmes and Adler are attracted to one another because they think in the same way. This makes them immediately interesting (and Jonny Lee Miller does a brilliant scene where Holmes tries to impress Adler, during which he becomes a clever boy showing off in front of the new person and carries it off perfectly) to one another. Elementary then makes the relationship sexual and throws in a twist or two (or three...or more) to keep you guessing.
The thing is, because this follows the path of two heterosexual people humping it's immediately less complex and less prone to misunderstanding. It's also less interesting. So Sherlock wins, for trying to establish that neither Holmes nor Adler think with their gonads despite them both wanting the other to just because it would throw the other off their game. And, incidentally, blow Watson's mind too.
And The Winner?
Sherlock Holmes, who gets to be the greatest detective of the 21st Century. As he was for the 20th. And part of the 19th. There's no stopping him.
If you look at how many times this format has been used - just recently, in House and Psyche - it's interesting that Sherlock Holmes gets remade or updated at all.
Mark Gatiss and Stephen Moffat have shown that the stories themselves can be updated and still interesting. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman have shown that the traditional way of looking at the characters works and is oddly still relevant today. Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu have shown that Holmes can cheerfully survive crossing the Atlantic and the challenges of working in New York, and that a female Watson isn't stunt casting and doesn't destroy the dynamic between the two characters.
In their own ways, both shows are a triumph and while Sherlock is a bright candle that will burn twice as fast and half as long as Elementary, it's rather splendid to be able to enjoy both on their respective merits.
Read more...
Why is "Elementary" better than Sherlock? The answer is that it's not. But let's do a point by point from the original article and see what I can refute.
The Set Up
According to TOA, it's a tie. Elementary scores by making bold casting choices, which means making Watson a woman. Elementary also has a more racially diverse cast than Sherlock.
This is a bit of a surprise, given that London is one of the planet's more diverse cities. It was in Conan Doyle's day too. But I don't see this as a factor. Making Watson Joan instead of John and asian instead of european is meaningless when you understand that Joan Watson is every bit as effective a foil for the New York Holmes that John Watson is for the one in London. It's down to the casting - Lucy Liu is excellent and while the writers have given her a somewhat different Watson to work with, I don't doubt that if they'd done nothing but change Watson's gender she could have carried off playing an Army medic home from Afghanistan.
In fact, I don't see the set up as being particularly something to score points over: both detectives live and work in a metropolis. Elementary doesn't suffer by being in New York any more than Sherlock does for staying in London.
Let's skip to The Casting
Nobody loses points for casting Vinnie Jones as Sebastian Moran. He's not exactly Larry Olivier, but he can do menace and he can do brutality, and he does a number of other things well enough that he's not a drag on the show.
Sherlock's casting is practically perfect. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are rivetting presences and the interplay between them makes the stories come to life. Whenever I have a problem with the way the story is moving, I shut up and watch these two in action, because it never disappoints.
With Cumberbatch to measure up against, you might assume that Jonny Lee Miller might have a tough time. Not a bit of it. Same character, two very different interpretations, both excellent and both - most importantly of all - recognisably Sherlock Holmes. There are times when both men make the rest of the cast fade into the background, because you don't want your eyes anywhere else (and that's a tough thing to do on Sherlock because that cast is very, very good). On Elementary, which is much more of an ensemble piece, you end up watching Miller to see what his Holmes might be thinking or what might have caught his interest.
Lucy Liu and Martin Freeman also provide eminently watchable characters: John Watson gets to resume his mantle as the competent, intelligent military medic injured in action and we're allowed to discover Joan Watson slowly and carefully, getting to know the character all over again.
The supporting cast don't really get much of a presence in Sherlock. I for one could do with a bit more Lestrade, and I was sad to see the back of Moriarty. Assuming, that is, we really have. The regulars on Elementary make the show a little less about a consulting detective and a bit more of a police procedural, which was the last thing TV needed, but given how the characters end up bouncing off Holmes it's avoided becoming a group of people who are the American Holmes's surrogate family and more his support network. Aidan Quinn is always a pleasure to have on screen and does the Baffled Copper bit when he has to, but you always feel that he's turning to Holmes in order to solve things quickly rather than solving them at all.
Representation
I always question this when I see it.
Look, Lucy Liu essentially proves the point that when you have the right actor, their gender and ethnicity really don't matter. They become non-issues. In the same way that Doctor Who could have a woman or a not-white-bloke in the lead role, and in the same way that Bond could be any shade of male, Holmes and Watson could be any ethnicity.
However, to cast people specifically to tick boxes is a worrying thing, and to cast someone because of their ethnicity is close to being stunt casting.
The problem is, a lot of characters on the TV and in films at the moment come from stories written by white folks about white folks. And this is because the majority of people in Europe, at least, when those stories were being written were...white folks.
It's not anyone's fault that this is the case.
What we should be doing is looking to the current crop of up and coming writers and encouraging them to write about where they are from and what they know. We can look back into recent history and find some writers who have already done this, get their work on the stage and the screen. We viewers and media consumers can remind the production companies and - really importantly - the advertisers and money people - that we will watch a show that we love no matter which demographic the lead actors are from and that making brave choices only really creates more fans.
It shouldn't be about ticking boxes. It should be about reminding the folks in charge that we need heroes; if you get the right writer and the right actor that hero can be from anywhere and played by anyone.
There's another element to this. Role models are important. When I was a kid and was looking for someone to be like, I had The Doctor to look up to. For this generation of kids, it would be great if they too felt they could look up to The Doctor, or Sherlock Holmes, or John/Joan Watson. But it would be even better if they had a broader choice and if some of those heroes looked like they grew up in the same place as the viewers. I honestly believe if you pick the right actor and give them the right material, ALL of the audience will become fans and their gender and ethnicity will be the last things on anyone's minds.
So this is a non-category.
The Woman Problem
Irene Adler is always going to be an issue.
On the one hand, there's the Stephen Moffat take on The Woman.
Originally, The Woman is a grifter who out-maneuvers Holmes and for whom he develops respect and admiration. The original Sherlock Holmes would no more have considered a sexual relationship with Adler than he would with John Watson.
Moffat's Irene Adler is apparently operating under the instructions of James Moriarty, which undercuts her power as a character and removes some of her agency. I disagree that she's working to Moriarty's script. I think she shows herself to be quite adept at improvising and keeping herself secure without the intervention of Moriarty - although it's nice to think that she's aware of who he is and sells him things occasionally. I also think that people overlook the scene where Adler greets Sherlock naked.
In that scene, Sherlock doesn't focus on her nakedness or on her body. He's not interested in either. He doesn't get flustered because he can see boobs, he gets flustered because he can't see any of the clues and cues which will help him establish his intelligence. She turns up naked and, for a lot of non-standard reasons - Sherlock has nothing to say.
I have a bit of a problem with how, at the end of the story, she's rescued. I would have preferred her to rescue herself (maybe with Sherlock turning up a few seconds late and observing the escape, or aiding her departure), but again you have to understand the motivation of the character. I think Sherlock decides to rescue her to demonstrate that he believes she's his equal, because he's been consistently outplayed and out-thought so it's his one chance to show that he's as good as he claims to be.
However, this is less than clear and it leaves a lot of the interaction between Adler and Holmes hard to interpret. My belief is that Adler is playing with Holmes all the way along. In him she might have found someone interesting - in the same way that Gregory House finds people interesting if they are a challenge or as difficult as he is. Irene Adler, therefore, has found something she lacks: a friend, someone she can have an actual conversation with. Someone who might understand her view of the world and the people in it without backing away and looking for the exit. She might want to sleep with women, but this doesn't preclude the possibility of falling in love with a man.
And here, English lets us down a bit. Love and sex are not the same thing. Love doesn't necessarily need to be gender determined, and it's a bit retrograde of people to say that just because Irene is a lesbian she's incapable of finding Sherlock attractive or incapable of falling in love with him. It all depends on what sort of love we're talking about.
I think some critics have jumped at the idea of Adler fancying Holmes because:
a) they do
b) they have an axe to grind (on Moffat, it seems)
c) it seems like the sane and sensible reaction for these two characters.
Nah. Far more likely is that Adler and Holmes have found someone who thinks like they do and this is fascinating. The attraction between them is based on how cool it is to see yourself from the outside, to see how good you are and to see yourself as others must surely see you.
This is where Elementary gets the relationship dead right. Holmes and Adler are attracted to one another because they think in the same way. This makes them immediately interesting (and Jonny Lee Miller does a brilliant scene where Holmes tries to impress Adler, during which he becomes a clever boy showing off in front of the new person and carries it off perfectly) to one another. Elementary then makes the relationship sexual and throws in a twist or two (or three...or more) to keep you guessing.
The thing is, because this follows the path of two heterosexual people humping it's immediately less complex and less prone to misunderstanding. It's also less interesting. So Sherlock wins, for trying to establish that neither Holmes nor Adler think with their gonads despite them both wanting the other to just because it would throw the other off their game. And, incidentally, blow Watson's mind too.
And The Winner?
Sherlock Holmes, who gets to be the greatest detective of the 21st Century. As he was for the 20th. And part of the 19th. There's no stopping him.
If you look at how many times this format has been used - just recently, in House and Psyche - it's interesting that Sherlock Holmes gets remade or updated at all.
Mark Gatiss and Stephen Moffat have shown that the stories themselves can be updated and still interesting. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman have shown that the traditional way of looking at the characters works and is oddly still relevant today. Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu have shown that Holmes can cheerfully survive crossing the Atlantic and the challenges of working in New York, and that a female Watson isn't stunt casting and doesn't destroy the dynamic between the two characters.
In their own ways, both shows are a triumph and while Sherlock is a bright candle that will burn twice as fast and half as long as Elementary, it's rather splendid to be able to enjoy both on their respective merits.
