In an age where the term “remake” is a dirty word, it’s easy to be suspicious of BBC’s “Sherlock.” Set in modern London, the show follows the exploits of the abrasive consulting detective Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his friend John Watson (Martin Freeman) as they bicker and deduce their way through a series of baffling crimes. While modern re-tellings of older stories tend toward the dull and uninspired, Sherlock bucks the trend with sharp writing and a pair of truly outstanding lead performances.
The structure of “Sherlock” is a large part of its appeal, and it works on two different layers. Each episode is 90 minutes long, and this length gives the creators a chance to spin out a series of intriguingly complex mysteries. Some episodes focus tightly on a single case. Others feature more intricate narratives, spinning out seemingly unrelated cases before fitting them together in a grand finish. Under the trickery, though, is a sense of tight control. Sherlock turns nimbly from hilarious to heartbreaking with occasionally jaw-dropping speed, and it is spectacularly good at building tension.
The banter is similarly well-constructed; half the fun of Sherlock Holmes is watching him talk, and the dialogue doesn’t disappoint. Sherlock’s sparring matches are fast, funny and extremely quotable. This narrative complexity isn’t without cost; occasionally the writing can feel self satisfied and airless, more concerned with glib wit than with character development. Luckily, the two lead actors are more than up to the challenge.
Benedict Cumberbatch is, simply put, a revelation. His Holmes is a lanky, brooding presence who skulks at the sides of the screen, cold eyes coming alight only at the prospect of solving a particularly vexing crime. Moments of genuine affection and charm are even more effective for being rare; Cumberbatch’s delivery is callous, bordering on the cruel, but it’s possible to detect warmer feelings underneath the hard shell. He sells the intellectual moments, as well. Cumberbatch rattles off deductions with such speed and assurance that the viewer is left wondering whether he actually needs to breathe. It’s a magnetic performance and would be worth watching even if the rest of the actors were terrible.
It’s difficult not to be upstaged by acting like that, and it’s a testament to Martin Freeman’s skill that he holds his own. John Watson has been a character much abused in many adaptations, often relegated to being the comic relief or the bumbling fool. Freeman’s Watson is neither. Capable and quietly funny, he acts as Sherlock’s conscience and confidant. Freeman brings an appropriately long suffering air to the role, as befits a man who often awakes to find eyeballs in the microwave.
This fantastic double act, backed up by some excellent writing, produces a show that could easily be the definitive 21st century interpretation of Sherlock Holmes. Whether you’re an old fan or a curious newcomer, “Sherlock” is a smart, thrilling reinterpretation of the greatest detective in English literature.
