TV review: “Elementary”



I ought to dislike the new CBS TV series, “Elementary” more than I do. Conan Doyle’s immortal character has recently been brilliantly updated by the BBC in the series “Sherlock,” which extracted the soul of the character with exacting precision and inlaid him in the 21st Century with barely a seam showing. This American version (starring Jonny Lee Miller) is far more ham-fisted. It takes an attitude to the source material closer to that of the recent Robert Downey films (which I did not like), except for the martial arts stuff, particularly in adding a grunge element which the original Holmes, a fastidious dresser, would have sniffed at. Nevertheless, I think it’s the very crudity of the adaptation that makes it watchable for me. I can never take this character seriously as Holmes, so I can watch him with amusement as a vaguely Holmes-like TV detective.

In this adaptation, the self-possessed, comfortably self-supporting character of the original stories is turned into a desperate drug addict who’d be living in an alley if his wealthy father (a character who never appears in Doyle) hadn’t hired Dr. Joan Watson (Lucy Liu) to be his companion and nursemaid in his exile in New York City. He worked as a police consultant in London before his breakdown, and in that capacity met Captain Tobias Gregson of the NYPD, who hires him for the same purpose here.

If you think the idea of casting a woman as Watson is fresh and edgy, well, it’s not. The idea was first bruited by Rex Stout to the Baker Street Irregulars (the foremost Sherlock Holmes fan group) back in the 1940s. It’s been done before too, both on film and on TV. Actually it would be a little surprising if they hadn’t cast a woman in the role. And if you’ve got to have a female Watson, Lucy Liu is always nice to look at.

As far as stories go, based on the two episodes I’ve watched, they seem to be adequate. Last night’s plot concerned bankers, which gave the writers the opportunity to have Holmes spout their favorite Occupy Wall Street talking points for them. But this Holmes is pretty deeply disturbed, so nothing he says not directly related to clues really needs to be taken seriously.

In brief, I don’t consider this Holmes a real Holmes in any meaningful sense. But once you’ve made peace with that, the show is watchable.

7 thoughts on “TV review: “Elementary””

  1. I haven’t seen the version of Sherlock Holmes that you feature in your post, but I have seen the version with Sherlock as a “high-functioning sociopath.” The recent opener with Irene Adler as a dominatrix compelled me to refuse to watch amymore. They–the writer and producers–took everything noble about Sherlock Holmes and did their leftist modern pagan subversion and ruined it for me. I’ll give this new version a try, but I’m pretty wary of anything put out by Hollyweird these days.

  2. I actually thought making Irene Adler a dominatrix was necessary.

    The scandal in the original story would’ve been met with nothing but a shrug in the post-Diana/Charles/Camilla world.

    In fact, I was far more offended about her being made a Brit. 🙂

    ———–

    As for ELEMENTARY. I refuse to watch it. I loved the Moffat/Gatiss take on the character so much.

    I’m glad to hear I’m not missing much.

  3. I have been watching Elementary. I have not yet decided that I like the characters, but I have found the mysteries extremely interesting.

  4. Kit,

    See the downward progression of paganism? You are accepting their moral vision and rationalizing it *for them.* For most of my life, the left and leftist Hollywood has been intent on normalizing sin and evil. For example, a discussion list I was on years ago had involvement from a guy who worked at Nickelodean. He actually advocated that the filmmakers he was advising be *subversive* in their storytelling. Having heard it from “the horse’s mouth” I can’t help but be cynical about what the entertainment industry offers up for consumers. The drive for ever increasing degradation and dehumanization as entertainment is not meant for our good. I wonder what writers/filmmakers would have to do to overcome the audience’s collective shoulder shrug in a post Jimmy Savile world?

  5. “You are accepting their moral vision and rationalizing it *for them.*”

    First, note I did not say that the current situation was “good”. I said it was the current situation.

    Yet, in a post-Diana, post-Charles, post-Camilla, Post-Clinton, post-Lewinsky world the scandal presented in the original short story would be a shrug. In fact it was quite minor compared to what happened with Charles and Diana.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.