"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"
Over the years, there have been numerous mystery novels and short stories, each featuring its own detective who uses logic and deductive reasoning to solve their cases. But no fictional detective does their job better than Mr. Sherlock Holmes of 221B Baker Street and his assistant Dr. John Watson.
Created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes was first introduced in the 1887 novel A Study in Scarlet and since has been immortalized in a series of novels, and more famously, short stories detailing his adventures as he fought against criminals such as Charles Augustus Milverton and Professor James Moriarty. His fame only continued to grow after Doyle's death as the character of Sherlock Holmes himself was adapted into more novels, stage plays, television shows, and even films, with many incarnations introducing the character in a fresh rendition with new stories.
Two of the most well-known Holmes portrayals by the general public is without the doubt the portrayals by Robert Downey Jr. in the Guy Ritchie films and Benedict Cumberbatch in the BBC's Sherlock series. While there are many, MANY other versions of Sherlock Holmes throughout the years, portrayed by actors such as Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, Tom Baker, Peter Cushing, and Christopher Lee, I've chosen RDJ and Cumberbatch because they are probably the most well-known in the pop culture world and also two portrayals that are perhaps the least similar to the original Holmes.
Both RDJ's and Cumberbatch's Holmes, although sharing many similar characteristics with the original creation by Doyle, are still the least similar; RDJ's Holmes is a James Bond-like action hero while Cumberbatch's version is an unreasonably intelligent superhuman, neither of which are the essence of Sherlock Holmes as a character, although both do have SOME basis in the original stories. What I will be discussing today is how each of them measure up as Sherlock Holmes. I will first talk about each of the characters by themselves and a few other key characters in their stories. I will then compare RDJ and Cumberbatch to determine A. Who is the most faithful Holmes (which adaptation was more accurate to the Holmes stories?) and B. Who is the best Holmes. In this instance, the word "best" essentially means who I think managed to capture the essence of Holmes the best; it is possible for an actor or adaptation to be more accurate in plot and details to the original text but the characters and the overall feel of the adaptation might be off because of one reason or another.
Anyways, now that I've explained what I'm going to do, let's start off by talking about the original Sherlock Holmes.
Sherlock Holmes (Original)
Sherlock Holmes' main draw as a character comes from his almost superhuman sense of deduction, which comes from his years of practice and some natural intelligence. Holmes often encourages everyone around him, especially Watson, to hone their skills and develop similar powers of deduction for themselves, often explaining to everyone exactly how he deduced certain things so they could learn from his methods (although I large part of it is also a bit of his ego). I always really liked the fact that Holmes was never portrayed as being some unreachable God, but a man with above-average intelligence who honed his skills and is genuinely interested in helping others become better at the craft, which leads me to the second thing about Holmes that I liked: his personality.
Holmes is not naturally the most sociable person; but just because he isn't sociable, that doesn't mean he's necessarily unpleasant to interact with. He can often be very aloof at times, but he is always very polite to his clients, save for the occasional outburst or snarky remarks. Although Holmes can certainly be rude, there is an air of professionality when he works with others. For example, although Holmes has often been very rude about Inspector Lestrade (who he views to be the least worst investigator of Scotland Yard), he still shows professional courtesy towards him frequently, and enjoys Lestrade's frequent visits and seems to consider him a friend to some degree.
The same goes for his relationship with Watson. Although there are points where Holmes is certainly rude towards Watson, Holmes does seem to genuinely enjoy his company. Furthermore, a really interesting part of their relationship once again lies in the fact that Holmes wants to help Watson improve and truly values Watson's opinions and thoughts on the case. Holmes also holds Watson in very high regard as a doctor, utilizing his training multiple times during cases. The relationship between Holmes and Watson is written so well you really do get the mutual respect they have for each other and the close friendship they've formed.
It's very hard to nail down exactly what's so alluring about Holmes as a character, but for me it was his cold passion for what was right; while Holmes is often on the side of the law, he is always willing to sidestep the law to do what was right. Holmes often breaks the law and commits criminal acts in order to achieve his goal, which is always what he deems to be right, and this idea of him performing vigilante justice while also working on the side of law at times is very fascinating.
Another reason why Holmes is so interesting of a character is that he's far from perfect of a character. The man is full of issues; he has zero social skills, he has very little regard for personal safety (he has put his own life at risk multiple times just to draw a confession out of someone), and he's addicted to drugs. And his flaws are very clearly laid out; other characters address them and actively call out Holmes for his bad habits and try to help him, and Holmes sometimes succeeds while sometimes failing. While often portrayed as a perfect hero, Holmes is anything BUT a perfect hero, but his imperfections are what makes him such an interesting protagonist to follow.
There is so much more to write about Holmes, but I think I managed to capture the main points of him in a rambling way. The point is, Sherlock Holmes so much more than a stereotypical "cold, calculating detective"; he's a genuinely nuanced character and a complex human being in many ways, which is what makes him so interesting of a character to read about, and if adapted properly, to watch. But of course, no Holmes story is complete without Holmes closest friend and sidekick, Dr. John Watson.
John Watson
Dr. Watson is often overlooked in the Holmes mythos as simply the narrator, and the POV reader "self-insert", and that's a big shame because Watson is such an interesting and accomplished character in the books. Watson has often been portrayed as a rather overweight man who is often a bumbling fool standing around solely to be impressed by Holmes' genius. On the contrary, Watson is, in the stories, the more action heroic of the two at times, being the one to always be entrusted with a firearm and often being called on by Holmes for help. Furthermore, the notion that Watson is a bumbling fool is also an insult to his character as Holmes acknowledges Watson multiple times as being a very talented doctor and being very intelligent and a great help to Holmes.
Watson is a good man; he is often the moral core to Holmes who helps him with his drug problems and and is a constantly trustworthy and loyal FRIEND to Holmes (and yes, Holmes and Watson are very close friends and not lovers; Holmes is clearly characterized to not caring about romance of any kind and Watson's a bit of a womanizer). Even though he is not as interesting as Sherlock to read about as he is more of an "everyman"-type character meant to be more bland to act as a reader self-insert to some degree, Watson is still a dynamic character on his own. Watson is kind, selfless to some degree when it comes to his friends and loved ones, trusting, and most of all, courageous.
What I always liked about Watson as a character is that he was very down-to-earth and honest about himself. Despite being a veteran of the Second Anglo-Afghan War, Watson never brags about himself or his immense skills. Of course, the canonical and non-canonical explanation is that Watson is writing about Holmes, and therefore does not need to write too much about himself; however, it does not change the fact that throughout the stories, Watson is always playing down his capabilities in many ways (it also doesn't help that Doyle likes to take Watson out of the action often). Not only is Watson fundamentally decent human being, he is also much more intelligent and useful than many people assume.
Watson is often relegated to the bumbling sidekick role in popular media because it works well as a contrast to the intelligent Holmes; the more stupid the sidekick seems, and Watson is obviously not as sharp as Holmes is. However, Watson is by no means a bumbling fool. Watson is an extremely capable war veteran and a medical doctor; he is filled with his own knowledge that Holmes actually often relies on as a second opinion. It's honestly a little insulting how often adaptations downplay the importance of his character, but one other character that adaptations very frequently like to mess up is Ms. Irene Adler, AKA "The Woman".
Irene Adler
Irene Adler is "The Woman" to Holmes. And before you get started, no she is NOT Holmes' romantic interest; hell, the two of them don't even have a relationship that can be characterized as rivals or even acquaintances. Adler, in many ways, was used by Doyle as a critique of sorts of the sexist attitudes of his time towards woman and to show that even the great Sherlock Holmes is fallible. Adler is an intellectual equal, if not slightly superior to Holmes, but she also isn't characterized in the cliched way intelligent women often are; in more recent adaptations, Adler does unfortunate fall into this trop of being a femme fatale, often acting as a love interest for Holmes, which I think is a pretty big insult to her character.
The sole story she appears in, A Scandal in Bohemia, is an interesting story because Holmes is actually not working for the good people; his client, the King of Bohemia, is a bit of a scumbag who is fine with essentially abusing his power to basically harass his ex just so he can get married to a noblewoman and get her money. The king just assumes the worst and believes that she will blackmail him with a photo of them together while they were involved, when she just wants to move on and live a happily married life; it's only when the king begins to harass her and threaten her for the picture that Adler actively threatens to expose the pictures and ruin him. Adler reveals the same intentions at the end of the story and says she will only keep the picture as leverage just in case the king tries to harm her again, but won't ever use it for no other reason. In the end, the king really was the bad person in this story; he had a secret affair and decided to abuse his powers to harass a woman, even having her robbed. Holmes also just believed the king's words without question (there really was no reason for him to not to anyways) and did actively work to help someone who just wasn't a very good person.
The story is important because not only does it show Holmes' flaws as a human being (i.e. He never bothers to consider the rather obvious fact that the king might be in the wrong and just accepts the job) but it also shows Holmes becoming fully outwitted for the first time. Although it originally seems like Holmes was the one who outwitted Irene Adler, it is later revealed that Adler saw through Holmes' ruse and outsmarted HIM. This is why Holmes considers Irene Adler THE WOMAN; he deeply respects Adler for her cunning and considers her to be the greatest among women. Although she appears in no other stories, Adler has managed leave an enormous impact on Sherlock Holmes. She is such an iconic and interesting character that she is usually given a central role in most adaptations of Sherlock Holmes.
Doyle really has an extraordinary ability to take minor characters who rarely appear and make them such memorable staples of the Holmes stories. For example, Holmes' landlady Mrs. Hudson barely appears in the stories (and most of the times she's just referred to as "the landlady) but has nonetheless become an iconic character in her own right; Holmes' brother Mycroft is another one of these characters as he only appears in three stories (and in one of them he was disguised during his one-page appearance and had no dialogue), but has also become a very iconic character. But I don't think any one-off or minor characters have become more iconic in the Holmes stories than the Napoleon of Crime himself, Professor Moriarty.
James Moriarty
Get an image of Professor James Moriarty in your mind. He's intelligent, sly, conniving, an equal to Holmes, his greatest nemesis, etc. One thing is clear about the way Moriarty is often portrayed: He is the main (and the most recognizable) villain of Sherlock Holmes'. But that could not be further away from the truth. Moriarty appears in exactly ONE Holmes story, The Final Problem (and sort of indirectly but also prominently in The Valley of Fear). He is mentioned a few times in subsequent works, but he only appears directly in The Final Problem, and even then he only directly confronts Holmes twice, with one of them (the final fight at the Reichenbach Falls) being off-screen; his other confrontation with Holmes is very brief, and apart from those two, Moriarty barely features in the story, with Watson only seeing him once. So why did exactly Professor Moriarty become so immortalized as Holmes' arch-nemesis?
One of the main appeals of Moriarty, in my opinion, is that he is an intellectual equal to Holmes. Holmes is such an intellectual giant that the only person who could really challenge him properly would be someone of an equal intelligence. Of course, this is because Moriarty was created by Doyle specifically so he could have a good excuse to kill Holmes off as he had grown tired of the character (ironically, Doyle's one hope was that he wouldn't just be known as the author who wrote Sherlock Holmes). In the one story he appears in, despite barely having a physical presence in that particular story, Moriarty is characterized by Doyle as a fearsome, calculating, brilliant "Napoleon of Crime". This title has stuck with Moriarty throughout the years, and is a testament to how brilliant of a writer Doyle can be, despite the fact that Moriarty has such a small presence in the stories.
As a matter of fact, Moriarty has such little presence in the one story he appears in, that his first name is never really revealed. Although Moriarty is given a fairly extensive backstory in The Final Problem, he is only referred to as "Professor Moriarty" throughout the story, and it is his brother, a colonel in the army, who is referred to as "James Moriarty". Despite this, in "The Adventure of the Empty House", the only story Moriarty is mentioned in, he is referred to as "Professor James Moriarty". This detail is important as it clearly shows Doyle never put much thought into the character, and yet wrote him so compellingly in his only appearance. Moriarty is such a fascinating character that it's no wonder he gets the title of Holmes' arch nemesis; of course, part of it is because Holmes really doesn't have any long-running antagonists to oppose him, so Moriarty is the obvious choice.
Every adaptation of Sherlock Holmes never fails to include Professor Moriarty and always includes some reference to their famous confrontation at Reichenbach Falls, whether it be a direct recreation of the events, their own spin on it, or just a similar confrontation that narratively matches with the Reichenbach Confrontation but takes place in a different location. Again, the inclusion of this confrontation is interesting because in The Final Problem, the confrontation takes place off screen, and all that we know about what happens there is that they had a physical altercation and Moriarty fell off the fall while Holmes survived.
Professor Moriarty is truly an iconic character in the Holmes stories and his brief but significant role in the stories is nearly unmatched by almost any other fictional character (apart from Tom Bombadil of course). He is the original arch nemesis archetype in fiction that so many others after him are based on and his significance as a pioneering character in fiction is almost criminally unrecognized.
Overall Assessment
The original Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle and the characters within them are such unique, classics that I don't think really compares to any other in the mystery genre. The characters and plot devices that seems like tropes or clichés now exist largely because of Doyle's work; just like J.R.R. Tolkien was responsible for more or less establishing modern fantasy with Lord of the Rings, Arthur Conan Doyle had the same effect on mystery novels. These stories and characters are timeless classics for a reason and adapting them well will be a very tall order.
First, I will be looking at the Guy Ritchie movies starring Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes and then the BBC show starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes. I will be referring to each of them as the RDJ version and the BBC version respectively.
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.)
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.)
RDJ's Holmes in the Guy Ritchie movies certainly doesn't feel enough like Sherlock Holmes to me, and I think the main issue is Robert Downey Jr. himself. Now RDJ can be a great actor; he certainly did a good job in the MCU as Tony Stark and as Charlie Chaplin, but the film Holmes feels too much like Tony Stark; now, being like Tony Stark isn't a bad thing (since he's a great character) but Holmes as a character is too composed and self-restrained to be like Stark. Now to his credit, RDJ did actually do a decent enough job of impersonating Holmes; he had the air of cockiness and confidence that Holmes has, as well as a certain level of gravitas, especially prevalent in the scene where Moriarty threatens Holmes with Mary and Watson's life. But I think overall RDJ was just a little too quirky to play Sherlock Holmes.
Another thing that I actually quite enjoyed about RDJ's Holmes was that he was portrayed as somewhat of an action hero. While Holmes is definitely known more as an intellectual, it is important to remember that he is also an extremely skilled fighter. Throughout the stories, Holmes has been known to be an excellent shot, being on par with the veteran Dr. Watson. In many cases, Holmes has been shown to use a walking stick or a cane as a weapon, and Watson calls him an expert swordsman, especially with fencing, which Holmes had apparently practiced in university. Furthermore, Holmes is very good at boxing, which he used in combination with jujitsu to defeat Professor Moriarty at Reichenbach. Considering how much of a great fighter Holmes is, it's amazing that the aspect of him being an action hero is barely explored in Holmes adaptations.
One thing that I really liked they did with RDJ's Holmes was that they visualized his fast-moving brain. Whenever he fights, everything slows down around him as he basically calculates what moves he'll make and what his opponent will make in turn. It isn't always the realistic, but the way we see his thought process and exactly how he plans on countering the moves is a really good example of how he can observe his opponent in a brief time to calculate his strategies. The "superpower" is a bit over the top at times, but from what I understand extremely experienced chess players can do something very similar to it by observing their opponents habits and past games to predict their next few moves, so apparently there is some realism into it. That being said, I only like it cause it's a cool sequence and I'd like to imagine the book Holmes would to some degree able to predict the next move an opposing combatant could make, even if planning out the entire fight exactly accurately is unrealistic.
But in the end, I do think that RDJ's Holmes was just too quirky to be Sherlock Holmes. It kind of felt like the filmmakers took Tony Stark and basically gave him a British accent, and while Tony Stark is a great character, it just simply isn't Sherlock Holmes. I do like RDJ as Holmes, and while it actually has a lot of character elements that can feel Sherlock-like, his personality I think is a little too over-the-top strange to be a good Sherlock Holmes, even though I think RDJ could actually play a good Holmes with a good script.
John Watson (Jude Law)
How refreshing it is to see a Watson that isn't just a bumbling sidekick! Jude Law's Watson is more akin to Holmes' partner rather than a sidekick. He is more than competent on his own and Holmes treats him with much affection and respects him just as much as Watson respects Holmes. There's really nothing much to write about Law's Watson since I really like this version of him and I don't have much to complain about. Law has great chemistry with RDJ and I loved the fact that he actually played an active role in every scene and didn't just stand around to gape at Holmes being smart like many adaptations of him do.
Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams)
Irene Adler is once again (as she tends to be) portrayed drastically different from her book counterpart. She fulfils the femme fatale role people like to give her and is now an active romantic interest for Holmes until she is killed off. I honestly don't remember much about her character apart from the fact that she was kind of an unremarkable character who just became the cliched femme fatale love interest.
James Moriarty (Jared Harris)
Jared Harris is probably my favourite part of the RDJ movies. He portrays the menacing but sophisticated Moriarty so excellently and he really does justice to the character. Harris brings a slightly different approach to the character of Moriarty that I actually quite enjoy. The book Moriarty is a former Mathematics professor who actually doesn't have a clean reputation; while he was respected as a scholar, he was apparently compelled to resign his position due to some unspecified "dark rumors" about him, and was working as some sort of a private tutor during the time of The Final Problem, and was so unknown as a person that Watson had never heard of him. On the other hand, Harris' Moriarty is still a well-respected professor with essentially a squeaky-clean reputation and is a famed lecturer whose works are very well known. I like this take on Moriarty because it makes his ability to carry out criminal dealings without anyone ever suspecting a thing much more impressive, which in turn enables him to be a little more passive; for example, in The Final Problem story, Moriarty is so threatened by Holmes' presence that he has to visit Holmes himself to threaten him and later is actively chasing after Holmes to Reichenbach. In comparison, Harris' Moriarty is free to openly invite Holmes to come find him t his university office and it is Holmes that chases Moriarty to Reichenbach. Harris' Moriarty holds so much power that he really doesn't need to do any of the work himself, which is much more impressive in comparison to the active Moriarty of the books.
I also found Harris' Moriarty's actual role as a criminal interesting. Professor Moriarty of the stories was essentially a "consulting criminal", providing criminals with strategy and protection using his influence in exchange for their cut; in this way, he's manage to extend his ring of influence greatly. In comparison, Harris' Moriarty is much more of an active antagonist; his goal in the film is to disrupt a peace summit at a castle built on top of the Reichenbach Falls (which is a film-only creation) and profit from the ensuing war. While the original Moriarty's "consulting criminal" persona was clearly meant to be a reflection of Holmes' "consulting detective" job, I also kind of like the idea of Moriarty being this terrorist with an international approach to crime. After all, having Moriarty's evil plan be starting a World War is much more threatening and impressive than it being stopping himself from going to jail. I like Moriarty the consulting criminal on a symbolic level, but I also do like Moriarty the international terrorist in terms of its effectiveness in the plot.
Harris' phenomenal acting also has to be discussed because it is BRILLIANT. Harris is very good at subtly portraying the evil side of Moriarty while Moriarty keeps his gentlemanly persona, but he's also very subtly threatening to Holmes. He doesn't need to yell or growl or point a gun in Holmes' face to scare him; he can just speak softly and choose good words to scare the crap out of Holmes. I've always liked that Harris' Moriarty is so composed and never truly reveals any sort of range or anger until he is fighting Holmes in his mind, and terror when he falls off the waterfall. Professor Moriarty of the stories was much more prone to anger; for example, when Holmes famously says "if I were assured of the former eventuality [Moriarty's downfall] I would, in the interests of the public, cheerfully accept the latter [Holmes' destruction].", Moriarty becomes extremely angry, snaps at Holmes that he'll guarantee Holmes' destruction and storms out of the room in a huff. This is of course, meant to contrast between Holmes' composed and emotionless nature throughout the confrontation and Moriarty's more emotional, quick to anger temperament; in contrast, while both Moriarty and Holmes stay composed, it is Holmes that actually shows signs of fear when Watson is threatened while Moriarty seems mostly amused throughout the entire interaction. It really adds an extra layer of fear to Professor Moriarty.
Jared Harris is a great actor and his amazing acting, paired with some amazing writing and directing, made his Moriarty possibly my favourite incarnation of the character across all Sherlock Holmes adaptations.
Overall Assessment
Overall, the RDJ movies certainly made an admirable effort to capture the original feel of the characters but also make them unique. Their faithfulness to the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories is... questionable at times, but I think that the idea was to take the setting of the original stories and create new stories with it, and it worked out pretty well. The movies are definitely much more action than mystery, and it's disappointing to see Sherlock Holmes' deductive powers not being used as much, but I do think that
Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch)
Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch)
Is Sherlock Holmes a detective or a man with supernatural powers? His so called "deductions" in the show make little sense a lot of the time. For example, in the very first episode, Holmes deduces that Watson has an alcoholic sibling because he has a newer model hand-me-down phone with initials H. Watson on them (which must come from an older sibling because an older man like his father would never have a newer phone) that has scratches around the port (which apparently implies a shaky hand caused by alcoholism even though people just can be bad at plugging in the charger). His "deductions" are pulled out from literally nowhere and are extremely outlandish; there are multiple explanations for many of Holmes' deductions but they're never even addressed and Holmes just turns out to be correct 100% of the time with his thought process almost never being explained.
Also, I know Sherlock Holmes was never the most likable or friendly character in the books, but this version of Holmes is just downright insufferable. I've sat through four seasons of this show and I still can't understand why Watson or Mary or Lestrade tolerate this jerk. Although Holmes in the book could also be dismissive and downright nasty to people at times, he obviously had his outright softer moments often; when the people around him did something right Holmes complimented them, and while he could be incredibly egotistic, he was, by all accounts, a fairly pleasant person when interacting with others normally for the sake of social conventions, if a little distanced. In comparison, the Cumberbatch's Holmes is just annoying and rude to EVERYONE; he almost never compliments Watson or anyone else, and he doesn't even pretend to act nice, having to be constantly be told to "behave". The book Holmes would be horrified to hear himself be described as a "high-functioning sociopath" since Holmes takes extreme pride in his ability to be a decent human being.
While Cumberbatch certainly does a fine job at acting the scenes where Holmes is revealing his deductions and he has a lot of potential to portray a more accurate Holmes really well, I think his Holmes is written so poorly that he just becomes an unlikable, egotistical, condescending know-it-all whose detective work is barely more scientific than an average psychic, making random guesses based on kind of flimsy logic that somehow is true 100% of the time. I really like Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor and while he does great with what he has, what he has simply isn't great.
John Watson (Martin Freeman)
What is the point of Watson in this show again? Because genuinely, he does almost nothing of relevance ever except from making Sherlock look super smart. While it's true that Watson's main role in the book WAS to make Holmes look smart, that wasn't his whole purpose. Watson was a valuable partner to Holmes, often being the person for Holmes to bounce ideas off of. But in the show, Martin Freeman's Watson doesn't really do anything of note. Yes, there are points where he contributes to the plot, but those moments are few and far between, and mostly serve to highly how smart and "cool" Sherlock is. It's a shame since I do really like Freeman as Watson and he has so much potential, but I feel that they've relegated him into an almost irrelevant character in favour of other characters to the point where I might even say that the only reason Watson is in the show is so that Steven Moffat could tease a Holmes-Watson romantic pairing (something that people try to do with even the original book characters, which I find odd and frankly kind of stupid) that doesn't make sense and doesn't go anywhere. It was such a disappointment to see this happen since Martin Freeman is a genuinely good actor who I think could have made a great Dr. Watson, but it was wasted.
Irene Adler (Lara Pulver)
Frankly, this incarnation of Irene Adler, portrayed by Lara Pulver, is a great insult to the Holmes story. She is once again some boring femme fatale character and a love interest to Holmes. They really did a disservice to her character by just making her a flat-out antagonist. In the stories, like I mentioned, her keeping of the scandalous photographs is basically just insurance to keep herself safe from harm by a rich nobleman; it's a one-off affair, and she just wants to move on from it and be happily married. On the other hand, the TV Adler is a "dominatrix" and takes photographs of her clients and keeps them for what is essentially a power trip as she likes to be in control in any given situation, and actively blackmailing people who already paid her gives that rush. It's frankly quite offensive to the character and to Doyle himself; the original Adler was basically blameless in the entire thing with no intentions to ever actually do anything with the photographs, while the TV Adler is clearly more than willing to blackmail people, and by changing her to an active antagonist, it changes the whole point of the story.
Another very insulting thing about her character was her relationship with Sherlock. The book Adler and Sherlock have a mutual respect for each other's intellect; Holmes calls her "The Woman" (which in the show is her professional name apparently) because he just respects her the most compared to every other woman he's met. In comparison, Steven Moffat (the showrunner) decided it would be a good idea to make Irene Adler: A. A romantic interest, something that I don't like since Adler's whole point was that she was a female character there to be an equal to Holmes and not some romantic interest like female characters tended to be during that time. B. Moffat not only had Irene Adler an active antagonist, but he actually made her lose to Sherlock (Sherlock in the end outwits her) and essentially has to have her beg Sherlock to have pity on her. Now, there's nothing wrong with having a seemingly powerful character break down and beg for help from the protagonist, but it's not what Irene Adler ever was and it's not the kind of character she should be.
It feels like Steven Moffat ignored everything about the original character that made her interesting and basically reversed to get a character who is essentially the "Anti-Adler". A Scandal in Bohemia happens to be one of my favourite Holmes stories as well, so it was very annoying for me to watch a great story and a great character get massacred into a shell of its former self.
James Moriarty (Andrew Scott)
First off, let's make it clear that this guy is not "Professor James Moriarty". He's "Jim Moriarty, Consulting Criminal". Now on paper, that sounds great; the "consulting criminal" part is a contrast to Sherlock straight out of the books and the younger Moriarty is a fresh take on him in contrast to the mathematics professor. But oh boy, what an absolute disappointment he turned out to be. Rather than being a villain you want to see more of because of their sheer charisma and intrigue, I found Andrew Scott's Moriarty one of the MOST insufferably annoying characters on screen (and this is coming from someone who had to suffer through Adric in Doctor Who).
Now, Andrew Scott's Moriarty had a very intriguing introduction; one of his victims, a blind lady, described his voice as being "nice" and he's set up as this very calm, gentlemanly, but threatening villain. He's characterized as a cutthroat businessman of sorts who will do anything to keep his criminal empire afloat, killing anyone who could give him away, including General Shan, who seemed to be legitimately terrified of Moriarty. Hell, General Shan is way closer to the Moriarty we know and love; she's very composed most of the times and has a very threatening presence due to it, and although she is very showy and sadistic unlike Moriarty (who was more of a "get things done quietly and quickly" type person), she still feels more like a properly threatening antagonist than the actual Moriarty does.
Now don't get me wrong, I think Andrew Scott did a great job with the role he was given and I understand why they went in this direction. But I just think it was a poor choice. Instead of being a calm, cold, calculating businessman-type criminal with some flare for the dramatic, we get this weird childish screaming Joker-wannabe. I'm not saying that the character should've 100% identical to the Moriarty of the books, but I found it hard to take Moriarty seriously when he was acting so... flamboyantly. There are some moments when he's genuinely threatening; for example, in the pool scene, when he describes how he never gets caught, he genuinely threatening, and later on when he suddenly screams out of control in anger are actually intimidating and does a good job of characterizing him as a threatening villain, especially when he is talking on the phone at the pool (genuinely a great moment of acting). But those moments are very few; most of the time, he walks around making weird sexual innuendos at Sherlock and acts all goofy which just doesn't match up with the image of Moriarty we had been led to by the show itself. Moriarty simply comes off as a weird Joker-wannabe, a psychopath who's flamboyant for the sake of flamboyant and it really doesn't make him threatening in any way.
Furthermore, I don't get his motivation in any way. Before he was officially shown on screen, Moriarty killed anyone he associated with that could give him and his empire away; he even bombs a blind old woman simply because she heard his voice. It's a characterization that makes sense and you get the sense that Moriarty is a very cutthroat businessman-type who cares more about preserving the power of his empire. But then this all goes away by the end of Season 1. All of that's thrown away and he becomes this maniac who's just simply obsessed with Sherlock and plays games with him all the time. In the pool scene for example, Moriarty has Sherlock and John cornered with snipers, but then doesn't have them killed because he's bored. It feels extremely in contradiction with the Moriarty we've been shown up to that point, it makes even less sense when he kills himself later; there was absolutely no logical point to Moriarty doing that, and I honestly don't see why he did it at all. Jim Moriarty as a character maybe be a mess of contradictions, but the way they use him in the show is also a complete mess.
I think at some point, showrunner Steven Moffat realized that people were watching mainly to see what Moriarty, this "interesting" and unpredictable new villain they created, would do. Let's face it, the main draw of this show is NOT mystery. Like I mentioned above, Sherlock is so unreasonably superhuman that the "mysteries" he solves are solved with information he got off screen or somehow figured out with no set up that it's really not interesting for us to watch him solving crimes. So as a result, Moffat decided to milk Moriarty like every other episode and decided to drag him on and on for episodes at which point Moriarty just kind of got annoying; he has a main shtick of being a weird flamboyant dude that just gets annoying as hell after a while. Moriarty is such a compelling antagonist despite his short tenure in the stories, and it was really disappointing for him to portrayed this way.
Overall Assessment
What a disappointment overall. It's saying a lot when the most "book accurate" characters were Mycroft Holmes (played by Mark Gatiss in the show, but played even more amazingly by Stephen Fry in the movies) and Inspecter Lestrade (played by Rupert Graves), considering neither of these character appear in the books prominently enough for the readers to really fall in love with (that being said, I think Mycroft is a really interesting character). It was just such a letdown to see these great characters and stories get turn into a shallow version of themselves. While Sherlock definitely has its redeeming moments and episodes (The Hounds of Baskerville was quite a well made episode and most of the actors like Toby Jones and Lars Mikkelson do an amazing job acting), the entire last season with the whole "secret sister" story arc was unbelievably poorly written and carried out. It has a great premise, but failed in its execution.
The Most Faithful Holmes
I would say the BBC show with Cumberbatch is the one that feels like it's actually trying to adapt the original stories. While RDJ's version also show elements from the books and sometimes even directly takes quotes from books, the stories themselves are not even close enough to the original books that I can't, in good conscience, consider them faithful adaptations. But then again, the movies were really trying to be adaptations. They were more into telling new stories in the Holmes universe with call backs to the stories more than anything, and I think they did that just fine, but creativity and originality unfortunately means sacrifices must be made to accuracy.
On the other hand, BBC's Sherlock also suffers from taking a lot of creative liberties as well, with a lot of the elements in the show not being in any of the stories. However, this I think is forgivable as the show itself is a modern retelling of some of the classic Holmes stories. Now, do I think they got everything right? No. As a matter of fact, I honestly think their characters act nothing like their book counterparts or are even all that likable. However, they ARE more faithful with elements of book accuracy, as they did at least try to imagine how different stories would happen in modern day, which I actually thought was an interesting idea, even if the execution wasn't great at all.
Although I think RDJ's version is a lot more accurate in terms of the general setting and the feel of the characters, I would have to say that the BBC version is more accurate simply because they're attempting to adapt the stories. However, they aren't adapted well at all, with a lot of unnecessary padding to the plot that doesn't add to the stories much in any way, which does make sense; after all, most of Holmes stories are all short stories, and a single Sherlock episode is 90 minutes for some reason, so with exceptions from ones like the Hound of Baskervilles (which was originally a novel to begin with), most of the stories kind of finish adapting the actually story rather quickly and likes to pad the rest of the runtime with with an added plot that I honestly don't think ever really adds to the story because by that point, the episode becomes a mediocre-ish thriller that is kind of cliched and not all that interesting. But that being said, the BBC at least IS adapting from an existent story while the RDJ version is just creating whole new stories in the universe, so the BBC version is more "accurate", even though I would never consider it so compared to most of the other adaptations that exist.
But that's enough on adaptation. Which actor was the BEST Holmes? Which actor captured the essence of the Holmes from the stories the best?
The Best Holmes
Personally, I would always argue that Jeremy Brett portrayed the best Sherlock Holmes and no actor would ever live up to him. Perhaps one day, I will do a separate review of Jeremy Brett as Holmes, but right now, judging solely between Robert Downey Jr. and Benedict Cumberbatch, I would say that Robert Downey Jr. was the better Holmes for me, even though Cumberbatch has his merits.
While a lot of people prefer Cumberbatch's Holmes because he's this cold calculating figure who's just an ass to everybody because of how smart he is (kind of like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory), I personally just think RDJ's Holmes is much more interesting to watch. The Holmes of the novel could certainly be cold and unsociable, but most of the times, he could be nice enough to the people around him and was never so socially challenged that he wasn't aware he was being insensitive. Holmes was an odd fellow, but he was amicable enough around others. Cumberbatch's Holmes is just straight up unlikable with his cold and unpleasant attitude to others that I just couldn't feel comfortable around, while RDJ's Holmes is much more likable.
Holmes' likability question also leads into my point about his relationship with Watson. Cumberbatch's Holmes and Freeman's Watson are just in a very toxic relationship that Watson never seems to benefit from. Watson is too reliant on Holmes and we rarely ever get to see him be even somewhat independent from Holmes; everything he does has to relate to Holmes in some way and it annoys me. On the other hand, RDJ's Holmes and Law's Watson genuinely seems to enjoy each other's company and are actual friends. Cumberbatch and Freeman constantly act annoyed at each other and Holmes treats Watson merely like a tool and nothing more; meanwhile, RDJ and Law have a lot of friendly banter and neither treats the other merely like a useful tool, instead treating each other as invaluable partners.
Another thing that I enjoyed about RDJ's Holmes that a lot people didn't actually like was that he was an action hero. Although I didn't really like that the RDJ movies became more action than mystery, one thing I liked was that RDJ's Holmes was a man of action. Holmes is a man who is versatile in all practical matters; he is proficient in science because it becomes necessary during his work but not in philosophy or literature. And it makes perfect sense to me that Holmes would also be trained in hand-to-hand combat, and with RDJ not only did we get to see him fight, but we also saw him use his great intellect to predict his opponents moves and calculate his own next move. On the other hand, we never see Cumberbatch's Holmes actually do much fighting, which kind of is a disappointment to me.
Even though what I've been writing so far is more related to accuracy than actual quality, it still contributes to my argument that Robert Downey Jr. was the better Holmes. Through his actions (mannerisms, interactions with others, etc.), RDJ is the one between the two that I can recognize as being Sherlock Holmes more. While RDJ's Holmes has his fair share of issues, he at least feels more like Sherlock Holmes to me. He could be cocky and arrogant, but still personable to those he liked; you could feel his burning passion as he did his work, and you got the feeling that his cases weren't simply things to kill his boredom, and that's exactly why I think RDJ is the better Holmes and his universe is a better representation of Doyle's universe.
Concluding Thoughts
Let's get something clear: both the RDJ and the BBC versions aren't perfect. Both have their strong points and both have their flaws. But in the end, I think that the RDJ movies did a better job at portraying the Sherlock Holmes we've come to love through Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. While the BBC makes an admirable attempt at trying to modernize the stories, I think it fell flat in the end because it tried to take too much creative liberties and took away from some of the classic elements that made Sherlock Holmes so beloved. In the end, I still like what RDJ's movies tried to do and I like what the BBC tried to do, but no Holmes will ever beat Jeremy Brett and that's final.
Well, that took forever to finish. Maybe Sherlock Holmes was just too big of a project for me to handle. I definitely took too much of a big project on and I was definitely out of my depth on this subject. For my next review, I'll be taking a look at a horror classic by Alfred Hitchcock that manages to squeeze screams out of people with just a bottle of chocolate syrup. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!Your Most Faithful Blogger,
The Connoisseur
