Sherlock I Presume

Sherlock Holmes is one of the most famous detectives in pop culture history. The books, written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, remain popular, and he and his sidekick — Dr. Watson — have appeared in numerous adaptations.

Sherlock is, in fact, still popular today, with two very different versions of the hero appearing for audiences. It's an interesting study, examining those two properties, to see how the hero has changed moving to the modern era, and how the stories remain relevant to audiences.

The first incarnation has been the Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law starring, Guy Ritchie directed, big-screen version. Now the Holmes purists haven't been wild about the way the story has been brought to life, and that's somewhat understandable. I maintain that core elements of the character and world remain the same, but this is not your father's Sherlock Holmes.

Ritchie is best know for his slickly edited action films — such as "Snatch." And you see elements of that in his take on Sherlock Holmes. It has a more modern approach to action sequences and fight sequences, and it uses a gimmick of sight and shot to get in the head space of Sherlock Holmes. Doubtless that is what many people dislike.

Still, the rapport between Downey and Law is great, and there is a fun element to the films. The period looks right, and they are fun films. In fact, I would argue that the second film — featuring the better Jared Harris as Professor Moriarty — was a much better villain.

Then we have "Sherlock," a series/mini-series produced by the BBC. This is where things get interesting. With "Sherlock," the cases and characters are the same. The locations are the same. But the setting and time period are radically different.

In "Sherlock," the story, action, and characters are moved to the modern era. This helps tell a familiar story — in terms of basic plot — in a vibrant new way. It's also a fun exploration of the basic character of Holmes in a radically different setting. The show takes advantage of that in the way the character is presented.

And here's the rub, they accomplish what Ritchie is trying to do in a much more enjoyable way. Benedict Cumberbach is great as Sherlock Holmes, and Martin Freeman does well as Dr. Watson. The shows are moving and engaging, and their rapport works well on the screen. I think, when you really analyze the show, you see the writers accomplishing on the small screen what hasn't quite come together on the big screen.

The first season appeared last year, and the second season (all 90 minute episodes, about three per season), will appear this spring on PBS. The other thing that comes out of this Sherlock revelation is a hard truth about the quality of the BBC product. For years, friends and relatives have praised the quality of British TV while I have defended American TV, particularly our cable networks. But that argument is getting harder to justify.

While Showtime, HBO and FX still produce some great shows, the consistent quality isn't what it once was. Further, those cable networks seem all too interested in pushing the line in terms of sex, violence, content, and language in order to tell and "authentic" story.

The BBC shows don't feel that need, and often accomplish more in terms of creating an engaging narrative. "Sherlock," "Downton Abbey," "The Hour," and "Luther" are all BBC series that have drawn a following, and award recognition, in the United States, and for good reason. In an era where US shows and films seem to be experience a dearth of creativity or, worse, seem out of touch with the common name, here comes a new class of entertainment from overseas that is just that — entertaining.