Sherlock: BBC vs Warner Bros. adaptation

  10, 2012 03:41
As always, adaptations tend to fall a little behind the original materials. Or have they?

In the next upcoming months, we'd be seeing a fairly handful of fairy tale adaptions being brought to life on the screen. Already, we have Once Upon a Time and Grimm battling it out on the screens as each interpret the fairy tale differently. Then there's Hansel and Gretel; and Snow White. I'm particularly interested in Charlize Theron's portrayal of the wicked stepmother. It's always a pleasure to see a devious character being brought forth to life in a fashionable manner. That isn't to say that I'm not fond of Julia Roberts. I do think however that I'd rather a more serious depiction of the stepmother than a comedic aspect of her. I will still watch both movies since I'm a big fan of fairy tales but everything else is just my own opinion.

Sherlock Holmes is an exemplary literature that seems to be successfully adapted both on screen and on television recently. With an outstanding narrative and a cast of ingenious actors and actresses, everything that I've seen has astounded me. It highlights so many moments of memorable bits from the books yet seemingly able to be a standalone and an original adaption at the same time.

Now with Sherlock, I couldn't resist observing so many parallels between the BBC modern adaptation of Sherlock and the movies churned out by Warner Bros. For instance: notice the startling resemblance between the naked scenes in the movie and the first episode of season 2. Nobody was surprised or shocked or astounded by Stephan Fry's appearance on-screen nude. Was it because that he was male and it wouldn't have astounded little girls as easily as a naked woman on television? Since the airing of "A Scandal in Bulgaria", there have been numerous write ups on how shocking that scene was. I won't quote any of the articles as they're easily googable. But suffice to say, it feels as though there's an unfair line of distinguishing what may or may not be permitted on screen.

This brings me to my second point. Whilst we know that Sherlock and Watson clearly have a very close knitted relationship with the other, I couldn't help but notice that the panning of the camera angles, the written lines and the chosen expressions on the actors' faces seem to be purely ingrained with so much suss in the movie. Forgive me! I know I'm a fan girl and I expect that my judgement is biased based on my ability in scrutinizing the film. But dear lord! How much more gayism must be portrayed on screen? I found that I was constantly distracted by it and thus felt that the story wasn't progressing as fast as I expected. Clearly there is a story plot but to be overshadowed by this? How astounding! Whereas the television series only subtly hint the relationship. There wasn't anything to show that the men were beyond the friendship zone. (Believe me when I say that I do advocate for gay men rights and that I do enjoy watching materials like these. But not on anything that I'd rather focus on the story.)

And how about the introductions of Irene Adler? I couldn't see the chemistry between the movie's characters as opposed to the television series. Perhaps it was in the way that Irene knew how to bat her eyes at Sherlock or Sherlock's baffled reaction occasionally around her. The relationship develops naturally that the viewer is becomes one with the characters, absorbed in every move that the character makes, and in every feeling that they feel. I could not see the same in the movies. Which makes me glad that Irene met her end rather short lived in the movies. (OOOPS! Spoiler! You didn't see that!)

Also, how did anyone liked Moriarty? BBC's Moriarty just seems so crazy and devious. It's insane! I loved the foggy old classic professor in the movies too. Especially the end of the movie in which both Sherlock and Moriarty battle against each other with their wits only to summarize their conclusion without actually acting towards it. Does nobody find that hilarious? I did. I was actually rather hoping to see something actually happen. But yes, um. Both Moriarty's were fantastic. Each brought an aspect of the Moriarty that we've read in the books to life. It was just brilliant to have them involved.

Haha! I could gush on forever though not in proper structured details of how fantastic I thought the BBC adaption was. But yes! It's clear that I do appreciate the modern adaption more so than the movie. I wonder why it just didn't seem to hold such an impact upon me? Too much gayism in the new movie? Or was it because nothing seemed as coherent and connectable to me? I definitely feel connected to the series... wouldn't you?

Comment 0

What's new?