And the Best Sherlock goes to…

Sherlock Holmes has been quite an inspirational figure in more ways than one. Many other fictional detectives have been created based on him, his exploits have been adapted to the screen, multiple times, he has inspired many spin-off works such as ‘The Beekeeper’s Apprentice, ‘A Study in Emerald’, and ‘The Seven Percent Solution’, and he is one the most, if not the most, portrayed characters on screen.

There has been a recent uptake in interest in this character with 3 screen interpretations. There have been many adaptations before, but most of them were true to the original works. 3 contemporary versions all use the stock Doyle characters, but are quite distinct works. Here I try to compare these 3 bodies of work and figure out which works best; for me, at least.

1.       The BBC series ‘Sherlock’ that has made a star of Benedict Cumberbatch (1^st 3 seasons).

2.       The US TV series on CBS  ‘Elementary’ ( 3 seasons)

3.       The 2 Guy Ritchie movies featuring Robert Downey Jr.

While series such as HOUSE are also clear inspirations, I’ve excluded them as they do not have the Holmes and Watson characters by name.

There may be some spoilers ahead for those who haven’t watched, but not too much.

The minor awards (2/1/0 point):

Moriarty

Professor Moriarty appears in only a couple of the Doyle stories, and is mentioned in passing in a few more. However in most of the screen spin-offs, this character plays a much bigger role, usually the recurring arch-enemy.  Andrew Scott’s performance in Shelock is IMO the best of the 3. He created a compelling rival to Holmes & Watson, playing the character with a bit of a psychopathic streak. The idea of ‘Consulting Criminal’ was a nice add-on. Elementary had a clever twist to the character, however as most of Moriarty’s exploits happened before the events in the series, the character’s impact is not as memorable. The Moriarty in the 2 movies hardly registered.

Sherlock 2           Elementary 1     Movies 0

Irene Adler

This is another character that appears in just one of the book stories, but comes up in almost every screen version of Holmes. The stock romantic interest for Holmes, though that has not been really implied in the books, Irene has been played by 3 beautiful actresses in the 3 versions. Natalie Dormer and Rachel McAdams are both impressive. However it is only Lara Pulver’s character in Sherlock that intellectually challenges the detective in solving a case.

Sherlock 4           Elementary 2     Movies 0

Mary Watson

She has not appeared in Elementary yet. The Mary in Sherlock is quite a departure from the books. Somehow seems to over complicate the story-line. Kelly Reilly’s portrayal in the movies was the closest to Doyle character.

Sherlock 5           Elementary 2     Movies 2

Mycroft Holmes

A 3^rd personality with a minor role in the books, but is found in all the screen adaptations. All played by accomplished actors as well. Both the TV series show some animosity between the brothers, which does not exist in the books. While he does not have a big role in the movies, Stephen Fry is always a welcome sight. Rhys Ifans’ character in Elementary started off as a distraction from the plots, but then became more central to the stories. Mark Gatiss, on the other hand, began impressively in Sherlock, but became more of an annoying presence in later episodes. Will tend to not award anyone full points for this.

Sherlock 6           Elementary 3     Movies 3

Mrs Hudson

Una Stubbs in Sherlock easily wins this one. Especially with her repeated efforts to remind her tenants that she is their landlady, and not their housekeeper.

Sherlock 8           Elementary 4     Movies 3

Inspector Lestrade

Rupert Graves in Sherlock stands out as the most memorable of the 3. Would remember him for saying, "Sherlock Holmes is a great man, and some day, if we're very very lucky, he might even be a good one." 

Sherlock 10         Elementary 4     Movies 4

Inspector Gregson

Only Elementary has a significant role for him, played by Aidan Quinn.

Sherlock 10         Elementary 6     Movies 4

Sebastian Moran

While he does appear in all three, it is only Vinnie Jones that leaves a lasting impression. An Arsenal fan to boot.

Sherlock 10         Elementary 8     Movies 5

The Villains

The most impressive is Charles Augustus Magnussen, who’s based on Milverton from the books. For him alone Sherlock would get top points. However all the villains portrayed in Sherlock are intellectual challenges. Elementary falters a bit on this count. This is understandable given the large number of episodes, each with a fresh plot. Lord Blackwood was a worth rival in the 1^st movie.

Sherlock 12         Elementary 8     Movies 6

Non-Canonical characters

Elementary has Marcus Bell & Kitty boosting up the interest levels. Molly Hooper does the same in Sherlock, as does SImza (Noomi Rapace) in the movies. Elementary has the edge here as the characters are more prominent.

Sherlock 13         Elementary 10   Movies 6

The More Important Awards (4/2/0 points)

Story plots

The movies are more of thrill-a-minute escapades than whodunits. Sherlock had some good plots in the 1^st 2 seasons, before it became too melodramatic in the 3^rd. It is Elementary that is most faithful to the central puzzle-solving ideas of the originals.

Honestly do not know what screenplay exactly means. But I think this has also been covered here.

Sherlock 15         Elementary 14   Movies 6

Holmes

Benedict Cumberbatch became a star through Sherlock. He has managed to capture most of the quirks and eccentricities quite well. However he has tended to overplay certain idiosyncrasies and ham a bit, in each progressive season. I’d think Robert Downey Jr, comes across more convincing as Holmes, playing him with a bit of insouciance, but still resonates with the book descriptions on focus and determination.  Johnny Lee Miller isn’t quite as impressive as the other 2. Will go for Downey on this one, closely beating Cumberbatch.

Sherlock 17         Elementary 14   Movies 10

Watson

This is, IMO, the most important role in the stories. While the titular character may have more airtime, and dialogue, it is Watson through whom, we see the stories. Holmes is an eccentric and brilliant genius, even beyond the smart ones amongst us. It is Watson, who the audiences can identify with, and through whose eyes we witness the genius at work.

All 3 series have established actors playing Watson. However it is in this department that Sherlock steals a march over the other 2. Martin Freeman has probably given the best performance of any actor across the 3 sets. He displays the right balance of surprise at the events, and enthusiasm to involve himself, that we fans can identify with, as our own emotions at those junctures. A gender change for Watson in Elementary is a good novelty. But Lucy Liu displays more weariness, than disbelief, at Holmes’ antics. Jude Law seems all too eager to jump into the action, as if he is on the same wavelength as Downey’s character. So not an effective window for the audience.

Sherlock 21         Elementary 16   Movies 10

Overall

All are very good re-interpretations of the classic stories. The 2 TV series are a tad better than the movies. Guy Ritchie’s version is a bit like AC Doyle meets the Wild Wild West. Sherlock has tended to become a bit melodramatic in Season 3. Elementary has continued to focus on mysteries; however it tends to meander a bit too frequently, into existential angst of addicts. Sherlock comes out as the best, mainly due to 2 factors.

• A very finely written Watson, that has been portrayed exceptionally well by Martin Freeman. The standout actor across the 3 sets,
• Well-developed and distinct characters all around, be it Moriarty, or Mrs Hudson, all pushing the story forward without distraction.

One Idiot

3 Idiots is probably one of the better films of the year. Or even the past few years. And it’s very rare to have engineers as protagonists. You usually have cops, robber, lawyers and businessmen. Doctors, sometimes. When you do have the odd engineer as a character, he’s usually building a bridge. Or, playing solitaire on his computer. Not seen a she yet.

But somehow the film didn’t quite click for me. 2 primary reasons for that were

1. Stale jokes. Lots of lifts from e-mail forwards and so on.
2. A keyhole view of life in an engineering college, that leaves out more than it reveals. This is a flaw it carries from Chetan Bhagat’s ‘Five Point Someone’, which, despite all protestations to the contrary by the Hirani & Co, the movie is a not-so-loose adaptation of.
3. Okay there’s no #3. At least not a big #3. Logical flaws in a comedy are chalta hai for me. Exam results are usually published in order of roll-no, making it easier to find your result. And why use Michael Jackson instead of Lata Mangeshkar in the subtitles? And if they were so eager to get hold of him, so as to get a plane to turn around, or rush out without pants; why didn’t the 2 idiots go to Simla to look for Rancho in the 10 years after graduation?? 4 years of sharing a room, and they didn’t know his hometown? No, because they were IDIOTS! Flaw cleared. And… ok, stopped.

Anyway, coming back to the other 2 gripes. The gags were funny, and had the audience in splits. But quite a lot of them were recycled jokes that have been floating around on the internet for over a decade. Some even more. And when you know the punch-line in advance, the laughs just don’t flow. To cite a few (Warning – Links do not contain spoilers, but do point to the source of some of the jokes. So maybe watch the movie 1^st, if you were planning to? You’ll laugh more that way) - The NASA Space Pen which you can order for $25 or thereabouts, the tourist photographer, the student in the exam hall, and the old as an engine yarn on how to start an induction motor.  

Spoiler Alert. Whole story on the next link. Watch the movie (if you were planning to) before clicking this. This guy describes it way better than I have.

The other problem is something I also had with the novel. Engineering college is not just about cramming, boring lectures and exams (though all those do happen). They are probably less than 10% of what the 4 years were. Reading Five Point, I felt a bit sorry that the writer’s strongest memories were about exams and grades. There’s also arts fests, sports & games (They did show a ping-pong table in the movie. Admitted.), elections, bunking classes, movies – lots of them, hanging out, parties, treats, birthdays, labs, lab vivas (always a font for new & original jokes), projects, RGing….. As the 10 year old T-shirt that I continue to wear often, says on its back “The Best Daze of our Lives.”

One difference between the movie and the book (besides the obvious extension of story into Ladakh and chutney), is that Five Point was more about how, until then, bright overachieving students suddenly found themselves completely out of depth, and struggled to stay afloat. And then tried crazy things to survive. I could relate to that. Having stopped achieved anything of significance after KG, I did not have any adjustment problems. Was happy to just pass. But a lot of friends did manage to reach college, before realizing that they cannot be class topper forever. Or that even IITians flunk papers.

‘Idiots’ however went into preachy territory about flawed education systems. And suicides. And parental pressure. Without really giving any solutions to all this – other than a utopia close to the Chinese border. Heck, if we had tried ‘senti’ with our parents to let us follow our dreams, we would have got back a dosage 10 x stronger.

Overall, more than the second-hand jokes, I think I was more turned off by the misrepresentation of college life. Ali Haider said it better in 3 minutes than the movie in 3 hours. To me, 3 Idiots are to engineering colleges, what Slumdog Millionaire was to India. A glimpse of the worst 5% paraded as the whole of it.

Why is Ghajini so called?

When Murugadoss, inspired by Christopher Nolan's Memento, decided to make a film with the protagonist suffering from anterograde amnesia he titled this Ghajini.
Have been trying to find the reason for this. Read somewhere that this was inspired by Mahmud of Ghazni (Ghajini in Tamil) who also suffered from a similar type of memory loss. However have not been able to find any authoritative source on this.
Read some other story that this was inspired by Mahmud's success in invading India after repeated failures. Similar to the hero's trial in the film. But this doesn't sound plausible. Don't think the invader from Ghazni had so many failures to start with. And the 1st name that would come up for success after many failures is Robert the Bruce.
When remade into Hindi, the makers had to name the villain as Ghajini to avoid confusion among the viewers on the reason for the name. You could expect the saffron parties to raise a stink if the hero had been named so.