Den of Geek

Sherlock: A Study In Pink review

Simon Brew


A rollicking 90 minutes of entertainment, the kind of new high profile drama that we don’t tend to get treated to in the summer months

Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss bring Sherlock firmly into the modern age. Here’s our take on A Study In Pink…

Published on Jul 25, 2010


WARNING: THERE ARE (QUITE MILD) SPOILERS AHEAD IF YOU'VE NOT SEEN A STUDY IN PINK YET!


It’s a very hard job to breathe fresh life into a character that’s been represented so many times on stage and screen. In the case of Sherlock Holmes, after all, it’s only been eight months since Robert Downey Jr’s period take on Fight Club hit the screens, and promptly ate up lots of box office cash. So what could Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss offer to make us sit up and take notice?

As it happens, an awful lot.

Their version of Sherlock takes little time in letting us know we’re in contemporary times. Doctor John Watson (Martin Freeman) is an army doctor back from Afghanistan, and by opening on battle scenes – as well as a series of melancholy shots of Watson alone, or trying to blog – the production immediately sets a very different tone.

The titles then re-emphasise that this is a modern crime series that we’re watching and not a period piece, and great effort is made from the off to establish that this is a very modern Sherlock. But it’s one that, as it turns out, is faithful to the source material’s spirit, too.

It’s not long into A Study In Pink that Watson comes into contact with Sherlock Holmes for the first time, and Steven Moffat’s script teases the build-up to his appearance terrifically well. The scene at the police press conference, with Holmes texting the assembled throng time after time, is very well done, and very funny too. It builds up the entrance of the character with real skill.

However, before I get to the character of Sherlock himself, it’d be wrong not to acknowledge just how the opening scenes also highlight very quickly just how tight Paul McGuigan’s direction is.

McGuigan, whose background is movies such as Gangster Number One and Lucky Number Slevin, is a brilliant, brilliant choice here. Throughout A Study In Pink, his camerawork is unfussy, and he applies a filmic version of the laws of thirds to many of his frames. It’s to great effect, too.

Furthermore, come the big climactic scene, he’s happy to ground his camera, eschewing close-ups in favour of having two actors talk to each other. It’s at the point where Sherlock confronts his nemesis face to face that McGuigan’s camera moves the least. Granted, the quality of the written material enables him to do this, but he wisely figures that we’re interested in seeing the story being told, rather than any distracting gimmickry. As such, McGuigan’s steady hand is very welcome, indeed.

He also employs some terrific little techniques, specifically the text messages appearing on screen, which we first see during the aforementioned press conference scene. This too could have been a gimmick in the wrong hands, but it’s used sparingly, and to give the audience pieces of important information. I really liked the way he staged the foot-chase after the cab, too, taking advantage of Mr Holmes' inner-satnav.

So, back to Sherlock himself, then. For not long after the aforementioned press conference, we finally get to meet Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock for the first time. He’s a texting-mad, nicotine patch-wearing creation, a man who the police tolerate rather than embrace (he is, after all, the only consulting detective in the world), and in some cases actively dislike.

Acknowledging that people usually tell him to piss off, Cumberbatch plays Holmes in the early stages as a straight know-it-all, and it’s only when we’re allowed a quick wink in Watson’s direction later on in the story that other sides to his character come through.

In the early stages, though, Sherlock’s delight at uncovering a serial killer at work offers suggestions that he enjoys the crimes as much as the killer. In his words, after all, “the game is on”. It’s left then to John Watson – himself fighting potential post traumatic stress disorder – to try and keep up, and a crime-fighting double act heads off to work.

Cumberbatch proves to be a superb choice as Sherlock, a confident, committed, brilliant man, but one fighting back curiosity (er, just not very hard) and a need to be Inspector Google at all times. His portrayal is both interesting, and very much his own, and he anchors the show extremely well.

But credit too to Martin Freeman as well. Many of Freeman’s roles in recent times have fallen into some kind of derivative of Tim from The Office. Yet, last year we saw him as Chris Curry in Micro Men taking a more serious turn, and here he’s very strong indeed as Watson. He underplays the character very well, both complementing the frenetic nature of Holmes, while remaining very still in his portrayal for large parts of the story.

There’s an obvious parallel of sorts to be drawn between Doctor Who and his assistant here, but Holmes and Watson doesn’t work like that. Holmes needs Watson’s intelligence and predictable reliability rather than his emotional support, and unlike Who, where the Doctor is economical with his dialogue, it’s Watson who observes quietly, only interjecting where necessary. Freeman captures that very well, indeed, and it'll be interesting to see him develop the role across the initial order of three adventures.

The actual case itself that Holmes and Watson face in this maiden story is engaging, and offers ample opportunity for both Sherlock and Dr Watson to contribute their respective skills. And as you'd hope, there’s a great deal of fun to be had in watching how it all unwinds. It’s perhaps not the most demonstrative of Holmes’ adventures to kick off with, but that’s not a bad thing given just how much business A Study In Pink has to get through.

For this is the bit where, not for the first time this year, I find myself sending plaudits to the man behind the word processor.

Steven Moffat’s script is the grounding strength of Sherlock. It subtlety crams in quite a lot of work, while still giving us space to sit back and enjoy the adventure. It’s a confident, energetic, funny and very entertaining piece of writing, that manages to pack together a case, the introduction of the main characters and Sherlock ecosystem, along with underlying threads for later on. It also bristles with the quality of dialogue that Moffat has built a reputation upon (“He’s a great man. If we’re lucky, he might be a good one”, for instance), and isn't afraid to have fun teasing the relationship between Sherlock and Watson, either.

In short, he’s based his script on A Study In Scarlet, yet he’s made his version very much his own.

Just popping really picky pants on for a minute, while I loved the denouement to the story, I didn’t get quite the sense of threat from it that the opening of the story was implying. But I take that as a by-product of making the drama so character-focused, of putting clever people against clever people, and didn’t feel like it hurt A Study In Pink at all. Arguably, it helps it, if anything. Also, I'd guessed the mystery of the story prior to its revelation, but again, I can't say it dampened my enjoyment at all.

Because ultimately, I thought this was a rollicking 90 minutes of entertainment, the kind of new high profile drama that we don’t tend to get treated to in the summer months. It’s set a very high standard for next week’s story to follow, and it’s laid some obvious threads to be picked up over the coming weeks. But even as a one-off, standalone piece of entertainment, it worked a treat.

Furthermore, for my money, anyway, it puts the tepid big budget movie of last winter firmly in its place too.

Roll on next week for adventure number two, then, and I'd be grateful if someone at the BBC could greenlight a few more of these stories when they get to the office on Monday morning...

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Interference 1 July 25, 2010 09:37:27 PM

Good stuff, but ruined slightly by the quality of the sound mix. Could hardly make out some of the script under the score, but that's usually the case for BBC shows isn't it? Also, high five for david arnold recycling his randall and hopkirk theme.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Viridis 1 July 25, 2010 09:44:23 PM

It was awesome. I liked the fact that Holmes projected his own troubles with his brother Mycroft on to Watson when he failed to deduce 'Harry' was his sister. Mark Gatiss was a wonderful red herring, and the cabbie wonderfully terrifying. This really was a breath of fresh air. What magic, again, at the hands of the mighty Moff!

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By stueyd67 1 July 25, 2010 09:47:16 PM

Absolutely loved it. Casting was perfect and hope to see more of Mycroft. :)

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By cordas2 1 July 26, 2010 02:13:49 AM

I really enjoyed this up until the last half hour when it became glaringly obvious... with this being made worse by Sherlock wittering on about people being thick and stupid as he was too clueless to put elementary clues together. I also had a slight problem with Freeman, having seen his 'sigh' off on Nevermind the Buzzcocks with Mathew Horne I couldn't help but laugh at the opening scenes where he basically recreated it. That said I will be tuning in next week for more of this fun and enjoyable show.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By alnapp 1 July 26, 2010 07:50:31 AM

Loved it and can I be 1st to ask: The Next doctor? http://post.ly/onhi]

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By lesmond 1 July 26, 2010 07:51:24 AM

I had it worked out early on too, but nevertheless an enjoyable story. I'll be looking forward to next week. This one will be a case of "less is more", though, 6 (I hope) or so excellent 90 minute episodes will be far better than 13 mediocre hours.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By marck 1 July 26, 2010 07:55:02 AM

I have to echo cordas2's comments about the glaringly obvious culprit. Sherlock is supposed to be smarter than us all, yet he failed to spot the obvious culprit from the clues. It would be nice to have a more challenging mystery to wrap our minds around out here in couchland. Nevertheless, a compelling Moffat script and excellent delivery from all performers. Nice one auntie beeb. More please.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By TheTeacher 1 July 26, 2010 08:36:09 AM

Yeah, this was more Sherlock than the Robert Downey Jr. version of Holmes last year. Enjoyed every minute of it and I'm looking forward to the next episode. By the way, the casting was really, really well done.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Geordie2004 1 July 26, 2010 09:28:35 AM

Good review. A very promising start indeed. The cast was terrific, and I'm very much looking forward to how exactly they handle Moriarty. Perhaps not the best story, but first episode ones rarely are, after all. I'll be back next week, that's for sure. :) Also, I absolutely agree with TheTeacher that this version is far 'more Sherlock' than the recent film.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By taotao.chang@btinternet.com 1 July 26, 2010 09:58:47 AM

I was slightly sceptical about 'yet another' reworking of Holmes and Watson - it has been done so many times before, after all... I also wondered about how the stories would be transposed into the present without massacring the originals - stories and characters alike - which are such creatures of late Victorian London. But was quite glad to discover I was wrong: this is a production that is quite comfortably contemporary, yet manages to remain absolutely true to Doyle's original characterisations of the 'consulting detective' and his colleague. And the pairing of Cumberbatch and Freeman is brilliant, with Freeman's stillness the perfect foil for Cumberbatch's freneticism. I enjoyed watching Cumberbatch, but for me at least, Freeman's performance was what stood out: his Watson, while clearly not quite able to function on Holmes's intellectual plane, manages NEVER to be a second fiddle. Quite an achievement. The Granada production of the 80s (with Jeremy Brett, David Burke, and Edward Hardwicke) portrayed Watson as an intelligent medic and loyal friend, but missed out slightly on the 'military' background, so it was nice to see it made more of, in an appropriately understated way, in this production. Bravo to the beeb!

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By cordas2 1 July 26, 2010 10:09:42 AM

Personally I really enjoyed Ritchie take on Sherlock, and in some ways found it vastly superior (as in it didn't have such a lame ending to the mystery, that required Holmes and Watson to become retarded for it to pay off). The beauty of Doyle's creation is that the basic premise and characters are simply brilliant and can withstand a lot of tinkering when done intelligently. If you want to see a different but equally enjoyable take on then I recommend you check out 'Without a Clue' starring Michael Caine which was made in the 80s.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By s1m2010 1 July 26, 2010 11:00:12 AM

in the firt half hour of this i thought to myself what if the grand moffat will be doing some sort of cross over with the doctor a la the league of extraordinary gentlemen, where moriarty is the master (i know the masters gonne but holmes is a fictional character and so is the master and who so anything goes)really enjoyed this i didnt stop laffin(except for the darker bits of the story) and for some reason freeman fits watson law didn't (for me anyway) and holmes where did they find him, not seen him before, he looks like they cloned matt smith with a dash of peter cushing. Well done to all concerned with the show and MORE PLEASE

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Morph 1 July 26, 2010 11:13:55 AM

Yeah, good stuff, and I also enjoyed Guy Ritchie's version so it shows that Holmes is such a classic character that two wildly different interpretations can work so well. Though at the start, when Sherlock was texting 'wrong' to the police conference I assumed this was the killer to begin with, and found it creepy rather than funny...

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By CharlieBoy 1 July 26, 2010 11:52:38 AM

Martin Freeman, was dreary and uninspiring as Dr Watson, and Mark Gatiss as Mycroft was just as bad. The plot was an original, so why bother having the characters Holmes and Watson. It could so easily have been an episode of Dalziel and Pascoe, Midsomers Murders or Jonathan Creek. The show was at least 30 minutes too long. There is not enough good tv on the BBC, and changes have to be made to the selection process that goes on. Just because an individual, or group, are involved with a successful tv show (DOCTOR WHO), does not mean they should get a budget to do another. Moffatt can't even get DW right. Spend your time getting one show right, resign, then do something else. Don't do two at the same time.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By procrastinationathon 1 July 26, 2010 12:50:23 PM

i went into this pretty unsure about it (perticually freeman as watson) but was very very pleasently surprised. gatiss was wonderful (his earlier scene had been appropreately fooled), as was cumberbatch, and freeman turned out to be a great choice. most of all i was impressed by how well the technology was used, neither taking over the more throughful parts of the plot, nor being ignored. it'll be interesting to see if this series covers any of the holmes stories i already know, but i look forward to it. i finally got around to seeing the richie version this week, and as much of an entertaining romp as that was, it was great to see what felt like a proper sherlock holmes.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Omniaural 1 July 26, 2010 12:58:43 PM

ahem. should I admit that my 9yo son worked it out about half-hour into the show? That was about an hour before I did. Ooops!

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By cordas2 1 July 26, 2010 04:03:11 PM

I got taxi driver (or policeman) as soon as they sat down in the restaurant, and when the taxi driver was talking to Holmes in the cab the gamble was the 1st thing that came into my head, but I also had other theories about what he might have 'said' - some form of confidence trick, or a threat 'swallow this pill or I will shoot you', or simply lying to them....

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By bobsuncorp 1 July 26, 2010 06:42:54 PM

I have one complaint about this show, and only one: That Holmes and Watson refer to each other by their first names. I know it seems like a small issue (and it is) but it would have been so easy to change and, like Holmes' clothes and the retro feel of their flat and the familiar characters, would have been another part of the original. Holmes is obviously an upper class public school educated man and Watson is former army, so both would be comfortable being referred to by their last name. And it could even have been a character quirk of Holmes to refer to himself and Watson as such. It's unfortunate when a little thing like that bugs me because it reoccurrs every time they address each other, but as I say, just a small nitpick.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By TerriblyTwisted 1 July 26, 2010 07:28:43 PM

I loved this so much! Thought everything was perfect. Puts dramas like 'Identity' in it's place. Only wish the finale for Doctor Who 5 was that fun.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By SpeakerToAnimals 1 July 26, 2010 07:47:20 PM

Blooming brilliant - I punched the air as Holmes examined Watson's mobile phone. Conan Doyle fans will have recognised the fobwatch scene straight off and marvelled at the modem take. Only thing that jarred is that this appears to be a world in which Conan Doyle never wrote Sherlock Holmes stories - otherwise everyone would do a double-take every time Holmes and Watson introduce themselves!

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By matthewsouthcott 1 July 26, 2010 08:28:06 PM

Loved it from beginning to end, seems everything Moffat does is gold at the moment. Wasn't the strongest mystery, but none usually are for a first story. I agree that Holmes realising the cabbie was the culprit was way too slow, but was done so (as Moffat has with the Doctor)as to allow the audience to figure it all out along with Holmes, am sure the next two parts will be a bigger challenge for Holmes and Watson. Hope BBC greenlight quite a few more

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By procrastinationathon 1 July 26, 2010 09:31:28 PM

@SpeakerToAnimals, i think it's safe to say they'll never end up at baker street tube station at any point, or at least not a version that looks anything like the real one. :)

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Dierk 1 July 27, 2010 11:12:55 AM

Those complaining about how easy it was to solve the puzzle seem to have no idea about good plotting, good direction, the Golden Age of the Mystery. The whole point of puzzle mysteries is to let the recipient feel as clever or even cleverer than the acting characters. Ellery Queen took that to perfection by putting in a challenge to the reader, 'every clue is given, you can now solve the mystery by yourself', close to the end of their novels. Right after Sherlock asked the question about who could go through streets unnoticed Paul McGuigan gave the viewer the answer by showing a cab, then several, then on parking [when Sherlock partly got it]. That was intentional by the writer and director. BTW, all those thinking they are so clever surely solved the chess move of the cabbie, you know if Sherlock was right or not?

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Sprocket 1 July 27, 2010 11:27:32 AM

Well that was simply great! I'm seeing years and years of new adventures in the future.Well done all!

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Noddle 1 July 27, 2010 10:39:37 PM

For me the best character moment (and one I'm kind of suprised wasn't mentioned in the review) was the scene where Holmes starts describing the guy who killed the cabbie, then realises that he's describing Watson (great shot by the way - give the man a .22 sniper rifle I say) and promptly shuts it. Got the distinct impression he'd never done that before. Will admit I had doubts over this - "Cumberbatch" as Homes? A) who the hell is he? and B) Cumberbatch? What kind of god-awful name is that? (I have a habit of picking out names I think are rubbish), and all I've seen of Freeman is Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, so, yeah, Arthur Dent as the smartest man in history's sidekick... yeah, definitely a case of "oh bloody hell, this is either going to be great beyond all measure or it's going to suck beyond all measure". Glad to say it was the former.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Taniwha 1 July 28, 2010 02:17:48 AM

Along with everyone else, I realised what the cabbie's gambit was long before it was shown. But I was disappointed that we never got to see which pill was poison, or, as I figured, both were poison and the cabbie had simply taken some kind of antidote beforehand. Other than that, I thought it was fantastic, in some places I actually laughed out loud. Can't wait to see more.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By cordas2 1 July 28, 2010 08:16:31 AM

@Dierk - I am aware of that aspect of Mystery writing but discount it from this episode because it wasn't giving the audience clues it was smacking us in the face with them with regards to the identity of the murderer, a great mystery should require the reader/viewer to put some thought into solving the mystery. As for how's it was done, that wasn't telegraphed but then it wasn't possible to telegraph it without letting the cat out of the bag. All that said I still enjoyed the show and am eagerly awaiting the next episode, I just hope they don't let the cat out of the bag in such an obvious manner again.

Re: Sherlock: A Study In Pink review
Posted By Eryndil 1 July 31, 2010 11:48:49 PM

An excellent start to this (sadly very short) series. As a lifelong fan of the Conan Doyle stories, I was apprehensive about this modern take on the books. However, I needn't have worried. Benedict Cumberbatch makes a brilliant Holmes, retaining much of the eccentricity of the original, as well as his intellect. Martin Freeman is very believable as Watson and avoids the trap of making him look stupid. The writing is clever, with many nice homages to the books, and it creates an enjoyable fast-paced story. I hope to see a second series before too long.
Post a Comment
 
Sherlock and Watson - Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Mobile Phones

LG ArenaHTC Magic

Compare over 250 mobile phones &
52,000 deals!