Critical Reception by the Media
Paul Rixon
Abstract—When Sherlock was broadcast on British television there was almost universal praise from the television critics working for the national press. This was a program that, seemingly, had brought Sherlock Holmes into the modern age. Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, two of the producers behind the production, had taken the fictional Victorian detective and applied, as some saw it, a Doctor Who makeover. It was no longer about a Victorian London but a contemporary one: Sherlock Holmes had come of age. In this essay, I will analyze the critical reception of Sherlock by the British national press and the resulting media image that appeared. I will do this by first analyzing the publicity material provided by the broadcasters, as they sought to create a pre-image of the series, and the subsequent reception by the television critics. As I explore the image of the program that appeared in the press I will identify certain underlying values, themes, and tensions that ran throughout the coverage. Such analysis suggests that Sherlock, in its new updated form, mirrored wider concerns and tensions relating to British identity and Britain’s past at a time of change; indeed, it could be argued that the critical and popular success of Sherlock was partly linked to how it dealt with these issues in a non-threatening way.
In the summer of 2010 a rare thing occurred: almost all the major television critics writing for the British national press came to laud the new BBC series Sherlock (BBC/Hartswood Films 2010– ). Here was a program that simultaneously excited the critics writing for the quality press and those working for the tabloids. This essay explores the coverage these writers and reviewers gave to this series. I suggest that their critical discourse is important, and moreover that it is a discourse in which broadcasters also play a role: together, media critics and broadcasters help to provide a shared framework for viewers through which to view programs and, at another level, they shape and guide wider debates about the nature of television and popular culture. As I explore the discourse of broadcasters and critics around Sherlock, I identify reoccurring themes and tensions, themes and tensions that are important in understanding the development of a shared cultural and social understanding of Sherlock. While interpretative discussions do take place beyond the sphere of professional media critics, I will argue that professional critical reception is important because of the high media profile of these writers and critics.
Critics are not just cultural judges, as in a way we can all be, but are also public arbiters of taste (MacDonald 2007, 54). They play a role in shaping public debates around what constitutes good or bad television, and assisting in maintaining or changing the cultural consensus. However, they do not stand above or outside of society; indeed, media critics operate within a cultural field where certain values are dominant. Depending on their social and cultural background, media critics will tend to be positioned differently within this field. Some with more cultural capital will align themselves with the dominant cultural values; others, with less, might take on a more subservient position while a few will take up more radical positions (Bourdieu 1984, 234–235). For Mike Poole, most British television critics have tended to align themselves with dominant literary values, focusing on television as a form of text created by particular authors or artists, rather than viewing it as a collective enterprise that requires a more contextual approach (1984). This has meant that these critics, or taste leaders, have come to create and maintain a particular discourse of how, collectively, television is spoken of and valued.
Therefore the mediated discourse of such critics tells us something of the cultural debates that dominate about television and popular culture at any particular time; it also tells us something of the discursive interaction between the newspaper and broadcasting industries and the wider culture. By analyzing television reviews and associated critical articles, we can gain an insight into how a society values, reflects on, and struggles over the meaning of television as a cultural medium, and how this relates to wider ideological, cultural, and social questions. As part of this discursive struggle over meaning and value, we must also take account of the attempts by broadcasters and other capitalist concerns, such as program producers, to shape the image of programs through the use of press releases and previews which, until now, have primarily been used to engage with media critics. Through this interaction between various parties such as advertisers, broadcasters, and critics, images or meaning frameworks for programs and series develop in the public arena. While these images or frameworks are not always accepted and taken up by viewers, the critics do play an important role in how they are formed and mediated. This essay will explore the development of the public mediated discourse around Sherlock, focusing on the role of the broadcasters and their press releases and the discourse of the critics. As I do this I will delineate and highlight some of the main issues, themes, and tensions around which these debates occur, which include that of British identity and questions of modernity.
All industries seek to protect their product, not just in terms of illicit copies, but also in relation to the brand, how it is spoken of, reported on, and written about. Businesses know that in this modern world we live in, it is not need that most drives sales but desire which is created through the discourse around a product. In a similar way, when any new program is produced, broadcasters seek to engender and engage with the media debate around their program. By creating a press release they seek to shape the pre-image that will appear in the media (Rixon 2006, 126). The Sherlock press pack (SPP) was originally released on the web on July 12, 2010 (www.bbc.co.uk).
Throughout the five linked web pages that make up this press pack, and the trailer provided with it, a number of key themes are established and repeated. This suggests that there are a number of perspectives that the broadcaster feel are important for the image of the series which they highlight for the press, and especially for the television critics. For example, there is constant linkage of the writers, creators, and actors to past series and programs they have worked on or been in; a form of intertextuality is being used here, making connections for the critics between different texts. Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss are linked to another BBC success, Doctor Who (BBC 1963– ), as well as, for Moffat, Coupling (BBC 2000–04), and Gatiss, The League of Gentlemen (BBC 1999–2002). While Benedict Cumberbatch is linked to Small Island (BBC 2009) and Starter for Ten (BBC Films/ HBO Films/ Neal Street Productions 2006) and Martin Freeman to The Office (BBC 2001–03) and Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Touchstone Pictures/ Spyglass Entertainment/ Everyman Pictures 2005). The press pack emphasizes that Sherlock’s production draws on a team of writers and actors that have pedigree and have worked for the BBC before.
The press pack also touches on the original stories by Conan Doyle and how this series, while trying to be faithful in some respects to his characters, has updated them. Although this version is set in modern day London, all the interviews and background pieces talk about the classic nature of the original books and how the essence of the original is maintained. As Gatiss notes:
Arthur Conan Doyle was a writer of genius and it’s worth trumpeting that point.... His short stories, particularly, are thrilling, funny, lurid, silly, strange, wonderful pieces of exciting adventure which lend themselves incredibly well to a modern setting [SPP].
Sherlock even plays homage to Conan Doyle, as Moffat notes, with the first episode, “A Study in Pink,” playing on the original story, A Study in Scarlet. Throughout the press pack there are numerous mentions of the fans and the Sherlock Holmes Society, an important group of viewers the broadcasters want to attract and please. The press release appears to be trying to balance the idea that this is a Sherlock Holmes series, one that has a linkage to the original, which, at the same time, has been updated; it is now modern à la Doctor Who. This is a world where the old fashioned forms of detection and technology are replaced by new ones, such as the mobile phone, the Internet, and GPS, all of which Sherlock uses. In so doing, the series creates what Coppa calls in her chapter in this volume a cyborg styled character, one that escapes the confines of the body by linking his mind up to the web. Gone is the dirty Victorian city, replaced, as Cumberbatch states in the BBC press release, by a London made up of “iconic locations such as Soho, Chinatown, Piccadilly Circus, Westminster Bridge and everything that modern London life involves—London cabs, the River Thames, traffic jams, mobile phones and computers” (SPP).
The press pack also links this particular series not just with Conan Doyle’s original stories, but also with some of the later incarnations of Sherlock Holmes in film and on television. Moffat talks of Guy Ritchie’s film, Sherlock Holmes (Warner Bros. 2009), and of having watched the 1940s films starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce as Holmes and Dr. Watson. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman both mention Basil Rathbone and also Jeremy Brett, who played Holmes in ITV’s series in the 1980s-90s. The press release situates this new production in relation to the huge number of adaptations, and especially in relation to the two important ones noted above, but at the same time suggests that this one stands out as it has contemporized Sherlock Holmes, bringing it up-to-date while still maintaining its integrity and linkage to the essence of the original stories. But, as I will argued, there is something of a tension here: this white, middle-class gentlemen detective who once typified a particular view of Britishness is now living and working in a modern, multicultural city where the old notions of Britishness are changing. The broadcasters through their PR suggest that the new series manages to redefine the old image of Sherlock Holmes for this new age, for the modern London, but, as Basu in her chapter argues, Sherlock in many ways seems tied to the past and it is not fully able to present a modern view of London or Sherlock Holmes. As the press release emphasizes, Sherlock, though living in the modern city, is still linked to his fictional roots in the Victorian period and by being shown as such he cannot but help bring the old identity of Britishness into this new era. In this way, the modernization of Sherlock both in the series and in surrounding critical and broadcasting discourse, comes to problematize the question of British identity: should such an identity be defined by its linkage to the past or should it lose the baggage of an earlier time, of the Empire and the Victorian gentlemen, to be defined by the here and now?
The coverage in the national press of Sherlock was fairly high profile and lasted for a number of weeks, starting before the airing of the first episode, “A Study in Pink” (July 25, 2010), and continued past the last episode, “The Great Game” (August 8, 2010). This critical coverage, engaging TV critics and broadcasters, created a certain image in which a number of dominant themes and tension can be identified. I will now explore these under a number of relevant headings.
As Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character from the literary work by Conan Doyle, it would seem obvious that much of the coverage by TV critics would mention or at least utilize this as a way of talking about or assessing Sherlock. After all, BBC’s publicity package itself foregrounded this literary connection. It could be assumed that some critics took note of this publicity as well as using their own knowledge of the literary work when assessing this new adaptation. As Victoria Segal notes, writing for the Sunday Times, “[s]tick a deerstalker on a melon and it is instantly recognizable as Sherlock Holmes” (2010, 60). Although the BBC’s Sherlock does not wear a deerstalker, it would appear that, however much this character and stories are adapted or changed for the modern era, this is still Sherlock Holmes and is recognizable as such. If it were changed too much, one would assume it would not be identifiable as an adaptation of the Victorian novels.
Indeed, in some reviews, critics wondered whether this was “[a] Holmes that Conan Doyle would possibly approve of” (2010, 25), as Sam Wollaston wrote. Or, as David Stephenson asks, “is he [the new Sherlock] better than the original Sherlock, given that he also has forensics and technology at this disposal. Well, no he’s not. The original Sherlock was at the cutting edge of science” (2010, 60–61). As a number of critics suggested, Sherlock takes from, and adapts elements of the original stories but, as we shall see, with a modern twist. Where Conan Doyle’s Holmes in A Study in Scarlet deduces various observations from scratches on Watson’s watch, for example, Sherlock performs his feat of insight on John’s mobile phone (Grant 2010, 29).
Even though comparisons of the literary work and the new Sherlock would be an obvious angle, it could be argued that some of this has been framed by the information given out by the BBC. The publicity is an attempt to feed into, to seed, and to shape the discussions around the program. Such publicity can be useful for the critics, providing some background and initial thoughts about a series they might not yet have seen fully, as they write a preview or review, often in some haste. It provides a ready built framework, an easy short hand, for the critics (Himmelstein 1981, 30). However, sometimes the critics will focus on particular tensions within the program, those the broadcasters often try to ignore or paper over: the fact that, unlike the literary Holmes, the new Sherlock no longer stands at the forefront of forensics developments is one such example that critics pick up on even though the press package bypasses this issue.
In the publicity produced by the BBC, it would seem that one of the most important points of the series was the updating of Sherlock Holmes. Yes, it is connected to the original stories, it is about a detective called Sherlock Holmes, who lives in London, but the London, at first glance, is now a contemporary city with all the modern things that come with it. The critics are able to read such publicity material and to deduce these points from watching the series. As Euan Ferguson for the Observer states, “Cumberbatch’s fabulous Sherlock may look a little Victorian, admittedly, but there’s no easy time shift device: he is utterly 21st-century man, just with a very fat brain” (2010, 27). And as Richard Arnold noted in the People, Cumberbatch is “a souped-up 21st century Sherlock Holmes” (2010, 35). Most critics thought this twist, this modernization of the stories and character, worked. “The idea of modernising it, bringing him up to date, was clever, and Benedict Cumberbatch is a darkly interesting Sherlock” (Gill 2010, 14–15). The critics touch on the way this modern London is depicted, the shiny glass buildings and slick black taxis, as well as the new technologies that have, in some ways, changed the world we live in, and the one Holmes originally inhabited; though some of the critics mention that some elements of London are seemingly hidden from view in the program, such as its housing estates, tower blocks, and homeless people. This is a world where Sherlock has “abandoned the fabled pile and deerstalker for nicotine patches, a mobile phone and a web site called The Science of Deduction” (Hoyle and Foster 2010, 10).
One could take up these discussions, to suggest these various reviews reveal a tension around this modernization of Sherlock. He is of another time, but is now living in modern London. This is no longer the London once easily recognizable from earlier Sherlock Holmes outings. This is London inhabited by modern people, a shiny city with skyscrapers, trendy cafés and bars. The London of Sherlock provides a particular vision of Britain, one where what it is to be British is changing, but what is on offer is not a multicultural vision of the city, but more an attempt to reconcile the past with the future in an unthreatening way. Sherlock offers nostalgia, a detective with a Victorian heritage, mixed with a view of London as a modern metropolis. This provides a constructive tension in the program, which keeps attracting the interest of the critics as they try to fathom how successful the program is in situating a fictional detective from an earlier age in a modern setting.
A number of the reviews, in a similar way to the press release and its attempts to provide intertextual reference points, highlighted some of the other Sherlock Holmes productions that have appeared over time, on stage, film, and television. Indeed, many noted a then current stage production and the recently released film by Guy Ritchie. Any work of fiction that has been produced many times and has become an iconic part of British culture consists not only of the original written stories but also of the wide range of adaptations and other forms of media development (see Redman 2009). And it is to this “canon” that critics, in different ways, compare this new production. How does it stand up against the, so identified, greatest versions of Sherlock Holmes? Also, how does it compare to contemporary versions, such as the concurrent stage production and the latest film?
Throughout the reviews, a number make reference to what are described as two of the best known adaptations of Sherlock Holmes, those starring Basil Rathbone (1940s) and Jeremy Brett (1980s-90s): “Gone are the deerstalker hat and the Meerschaum pipe favored by his gentlemanly predecessors, Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett” (Sunday Times 2010, 19). Seemingly, attempts are made to compare like with like, to use a familiar and relevant touchstone offered by other adaptations of Sherlock Holmes. While a few go back to the original literary work, most tend to focus on the way the majority of readers would have experienced Sherlock Holmes, through television series or films.
The BBC’s publicity package highlights the creative team behind Sherlock, with one web page put over to a discussion between two of the producers, Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss (SPP). Indeed, on the main page where their names appear, reference is made to some of the other programs they have been involved with. Reviews and related pieces on the series mention these two writers and producers, often linking to their past record of successful productions. For example, they are both mentioned in relation to Doctor Who, though Steven Moffat more so. For some of the critics the linkages between the characters of Sherlock and Doctor Who go beyond these writers, as noted by others, such as Harrington and Basu in their essays in this book. Both characters are closely linked to popular British culture; they are idiosyncratic figures, much loved and, in their own way, unique. Indeed, some make the link rather obvious: “It [Sherlock] was created by the Doctor Who team and, if I’m not mistaken, that’s why Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s formerly Victorian hero is a carbon copy of the guy in the Tardis” (O’Sullivan 2010, 23). As Jim Shelley writing for the Mirror suggests, Sherlock “is somewhere between Guy Richie’s super-slick blockbuster and Steven Moffat’s new Doctor Who, Sherlock was good fun” (2010, 21).
Part of the media discussion focuses on the way the creative team has reenergized Sherlock Holmes to create a new exciting series, which succeeds on television. “Somehow Moffat and Gatiss have sewn old and new into a very modern, very human drama, and what fun they must have had doing so” (Ferguson 2010, 27). These are writers who have already proved themselves elsewhere; these are writers who have shown themselves able to produce modern popular programs that seemingly are in tune with the zeitgeist:
The character of Holmes as reworked by writers Mark Gatiss (the multitalented League of Gentlemen comic) and Steven Moffat (Doctor Who’s new supremo) is a conceited, sociopathic ass whose genius ranges somewhere on the autistic spectrum, but who nevertheless possesses a sense of humor [Davies 2010, 27].
Critics, in this way, focus on the oeuvre of the creative talent behind a program, using this to assess whether this has continued into a new production; they use it to help make linkages the public would understand, from programs they have already seen. As these critics often note, this is Steven Moffat’s Sherlock, not the BBC’s or even Benedict Cumberbatch’s. It would seem that behind an artistic endeavor such as Sherlock, there must be a creative agent or author. Moffat as auteur thus takes over or at least stands in for all other talents, all the crafts people that shape and make such a collective cultural enterprise as television. In this way, the television critics continue to uphold a traditional way of viewing and judging art, by focusing on the artist behind the production rather than exploring new ways of understanding television. This, of course, is a critical approach to television which some have argued needs to change if it is to become one more able to treat television as television (McArthur 1982; Poole 1984; Rixon 2011).
In a similar way to how the BBC highlights the creative talent behind the series, it also focuses on the main actors appearing in Sherlock. While they clearly focus in particular on Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock and Martin Freeman as John, they also mention a number of others, including Rupert Graves as Detective Inspector Lestrade, and Una Stubbs as the old housekeeper. For each actor they mention some of the main programs and films that they have been in and, in this way, try to show some type of pedigree that might attract the interest of the reviewers or critics. Critics, in their turn, focus heavily on the main actors appearing in the production, as well as the characters they play.
For example, a number of critics are interested in the choice of Martin Freeman to play John, partly because he is an actor who is usually associated with more comic roles.
One of the surprises is Martin Freeman, as John Watson: crippled not, as so boringly usually, by a light weight intelligence but by an actual limp, psychosomatic though it may largely be, and by Afghanistan trauma ... and Freeman caught this whole subtle new persona with magnificence, and this part might deservedly free him, finally, from The Office [Ferguson 2010, 27].
Though others saw it differently. “Martin Freeman, as Watson, was indecipherable as a piece of casting.... Freeman had a limp that was supposed to be combat stress psychosomatic, but was really just bad acting” (Gill 2010, 14–15). Almost all critics used their assessment of Freeman’s past roles to weigh up how successful he was at being cast as John in the series rather than taking his performance at its face value.
In a similar way many of the reviews focused on Cumberbatch as Sherlock, often, conflating his on-screen and off-screen existence. Many saw Cumberbatch “born to the role of Holmes” (Sunday Times 2010, 19). Seemingly he is “perfect for the role” (Heal 2010, 60). How he is perfect is less clear. For some it seems to be his looks, the way he interprets the part or his background. As one critic wrote, “[h]e looks amazing—as odd as you’d expect The Cleverest Man in the World to look. Eyes white, skin like china clay and a voice like someone smoking a cigar inside a grand piano” (Moran 2010, 14). It would seem that “Cumberbatch had the makings of a rather good Holmes” (Preston 2010, 35) and that “Benedict is a darkly interesting Sherlock ... the new crop of leading young men are all sort of emo, pale and interesting, androgynous, with a lick of gothic” (Gill 2010, 14–15). For Coppa, writing elsewhere in this book, he appears as a kind of Byronic figure. The critics in their reviews compared Benedict’s casting as Sherlock to their own views of what made a good Sherlock. For most, it seems, he brought the necessary quirkiness that such a character required.
Because of the comparison critics always make between programs and the wish to highlight those that are worth seeing and those that are not, Sherlock gets positioned in a wider debate about program quality. Many of the reviews enthused about the production, seeing and writing about it in a similar way to what some have called “must-see” programs such as Doctor Who and The Office. This standing in the eyes of the critics is in some ways reinforced by knowledge of the creative team behind the program and actors involved, which was also highlighted in the press pack. Critics and broadcasters alike seem to share a view and wish to write about these programs as part of a new or on-going British wave of quality “must-see” programs, ones that depict and show Britain in a new light. This is a development in television that critics wants to be associated with, as it is one that can do nothing but help their professional standing.
So, for Richard Arnold, writing for The People, “the scene is set for what promises to be the best drama this summer—unsurprisingly given the scribe is Stephen Moffat, the Dr Who supremo who has turned Cumberbatch into the crime solving doppelganger of Doc, Matt Smith” (2010, 35). Many pointed to the dark edge of the program: “[t]his fantastic new drama series created by Doctor Who supremo Steven Moffat and The League of Gentlemen’s Mark Gatiss gives us a dark and glittering Holmes” (Harvey 2010, 37). Seemingly, for these writers, this production is “a must-see for Sunday nights, and it is a long time since we’ve had one of those” (Mount 2010, 18). Indeed, Mark Lawson, critic of the Guardian, suggested that with “[t]he overwhelmingly positive response to Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss’s drama Sherlock ... it will be a strong contender when it comes to this year’s TV prizes” (2010, 19). And, it is interesting to note, Sherlock duly did come to win the BAFTA for the best television series in 2011.
Others, however, were less taken with the production: “[T]he London in Sherlock didn’t look remotely like the city Londoners know or live in ... the show must be a co-production with Americans” (Gill 2010, 14–15). Indeed, it was co-produced with WGBH Boston for its Masterpiece anthology series, though it is doubtful that the American broadcasters had that much direct input into the series. This London is not one we in London know, it is not one that really exists. This “modern” London is one created by the producers to provide a contemporary setting for the series that, it is hoped, will provide the right kind of background for this updated Victorian detective. As the above-quoted view suggests, it also creates a view of London that would appeal to international audiences, one that blends an image of London as a modern exciting city with a hidden Victorian past, playing with a nostalgic and contemporary view of London. For many of those taking this more critical view of the series, it was the first episode’s case that let the otherwise excellent production down (Heal 2010, 60). As Kevin O’Sullivan wrote, “while this film-length crime drama succeeds in characterization and atmosphere, I conclude it is badly let down by a silly serial suicide saga that makes no sense” (2010, 23). Others felt that the chemistry between the characters did not work on screen, the stories were a little slow and the adaptations did not work well and this iconic character should have been left alone. It would seem that not all critics felt that the updating of Sherlock completely worked and that some would have preferred for it to have been left alone.
Whether or not the BBC knew it had a hit on its hands, it did try, in the publicity material, to take note of the existence of the fans. And while it focused on Sherlock Holmes fans, one could also suggest that it was also aware of those of Moffat and Gatiss, fans of programs such as Doctor Who. If it could link this series to the original stories and to these other programs it might attract the support and interest of these important readers and viewers. Many of the critics, in a similar way, also make reference to the fans and the viewers. For example, Harry Mount, writing for the Daily Telegraph, notes that fans will get pleasure from the adaptation “in spotting how that modern molding is done” (2010, 18).
After the first episode many of the critics mentioned the popularity of the program, noting that its initial outing attracted 7.7 million viewers, thus drawing clearly not just the die hard Sherlock Holmes fans but also viewers attracted by the publicity of this new and interesting television series (Hoyle and Foster 2010, 10). Seemingly the old view of millions of viewers watching the same drama still happens, even in the summer when many people are on holiday. This was news. Indeed, it was reported that a BBC worker had noted that “the top brass are made up by the Holmes ratings.... They really want to do more so the question is not really if, but how and when can we do them” (Robertson 2010, 1).
Some go further, reflecting on which viewers the program attracted and why. So, for example, Euan Ferguson of the Observer, suggested, “men love it because of the clevers, and the clues, and the chases. Children, even, will get echoes of that bloody boy-wizard thing.... Women will love it because of the clues ... and more possibly, because of Cumberbatch” (2010, 27). Indeed, the special attraction of Sherlock, and similar characters that exhibit particular intellectual abilities and repressed emotions, to women is something explored further by Coppa, in another chapter in this book, who suggests that the attraction lies in the mind-body conjunction. For Ally Ross, “[i]t’s also one of the few dramas the Beeb hasn’t aimed purely at women and could turn out to be one of the best things Auntie 1’s done since Occupation” (2010, 13). The reviews show that some of the critics were interested in who was attracted to the series, what pleasures they received and why it was one of the few programs aimed at such an audience.
While the critics are often reflecting on their own experience of the series there is some attempt to engage with and to think about who the program is aimed at and who might be watching it. Part of this debate is linked to the nature of Sherlock Holmes and his typical appeal, the types of programs Gatiss and Moffat are associated with, in particular Doctor Who, and the attraction of Cumberbatch. However, with Holmes’ large fan base, there is also some attempt to identify what his fans might like, or not, about this modern version of their hero.
The critical mediated debate about Sherlock is an area where a number of discourses overlap. The broadcasters, keen for the media to focus on their programs, rather than on any wider failings, provide publicity material about the program directed at the reviewers and critics. They hope that such material will help them shape the pre-image of a program, to provide background material that all journalists, and critics, will use. The broadcasters do not invent material and background stories, but they can select what they focus on and provide. They try to point out connections and linkages. Also, as cost and time pressures increase in journalism, many journalists, including television reviewers, increasingly rely on PR releases or publicity material for their copy (Manning 2008, 262–271).
As shown above, the critical and popular debate about Sherlock echoed the themes presented by the press release while adding some topics and indeed tensions of their own. As Poole argues, the broadcasters and critics share the same values, and therefore often view television in a similar way, and it is often only the worth of the program, of what is good or bad, where they might differ (1984). For example, one of the themes that appeared in such a debate was focused around the pedigree of those making the program, the talent and creative forces behind it. Debates also focused on the relationship of this series to others, to the canon of Sherlock Holmes, and the modern form the adaptation took. For some of the reviewers, this modernization was a risk, and for a couple it did not work, but for most it helped bring Sherlock Holmes into the modern age. Many saw this as successfully bringing of the character of Sherlock and John up-to-date. By modernizing Sherlock Holmes in this way, the series was able to explore concerns of changing British identity within an increasingly multicultural London from a safe white middle-class viewpoint. While reviews did not overtly suggest such an interpretation, their predominant celebration of the series suggests its ideological safety.
Running throughout the mediated discourse around the updating of Sherlock Holmes, a tension is thus visible. On one hand, Sherlock has a traditional linkage to a certain type of Britishness, but on the other he is now living in 21st century London. While he is still quirky and strange, appearing as a quasi–British gentlemen with a certain education and upbringing, he is now modern and technologically savvy. The reaction of many critics to this re-envisioning of Sherlock was, initially, that the premise of a modern Sherlock Holmes seemed strange, but that in the end it seemed to work. Indeed, for many the “genius” of the series lies “in the willingness to adapt Sherlock to modernity” (Ferguson 2010, 27). This updating is something that the critics in their reviews focus on and develop in relation to questions of identity. In a way, Sherlock seems to highlight the problematic nature of British identity at this cultural moment, when traditional white, English centric view of being British jostle with more modern view of British identity as the center of a global media complex. However, while critics’ reviews implicitly echo this tension, their responses also help deflect and dissipate it. This is a series that critics and the public celebrate. Thus, in its reception, we see evidence that Sherlock does not present a threatening image of London, but one in which the modern comes to be known through a more traditional and accepted viewpoint.
Arnold, Richard. 2010. Fab Baker Boys. People. August 1: 35.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2005. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Trans. Richard Nice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Davies, Serena. 2010. Meet the new Sherlock: an electrifying sociopath. Daily Telegraph, Features. July 26: 26.
Ferguson, Euan. 2010. Hi honey, I’m Holmes.... Observer: Review. August 1: 27.
Gill, Adrian Anthony. 2010. More join-the-dots than the art of deduction. Sunday Times. August 1: 14–15.
Grant, Olly. 2010. 21st-century Sherlock. Daily Telegraph: Review. July 24: 29.
Harvey, Chris. 2010. What to watch. Daily Telegraph: Review. July 31: 37.
Heal, Clare. 2010. Case of a new Holmes cracked. Sunday Express. August 1: 60.
Himmelstein, Hal. 1981. On the small screen: New approaches in television and video criticism. New York: Praeger.
Hoyle, Ben, and Patrick Foster. 2010. Sherlock’s TV creator hails it as reason to save licence fee. The Times. July 31: 10.
Lawson, Mark, 2010. Running on empty: Sherlock got rave reviews this week, and looks set to win awards. So why is it going out in the dog days of summer? Guardian, G2 Arts. July 29: 19.
MacDonald, Ronan. 2007. The death of the critic. London: Continuum.
Manning, Paul. 2008. The Press Association and news agency sources. In Pulling newspapers apart: Analysing print journalism, ed. Bob Franklin, 262–271. London: Routledge.
McArthur, Colin. 1982. Point of review: Television criticism in the press. Screen Education 35 (summer): 59–61.
Moran, Caitlin. 2010. Sherlock is so good, if BBC funding is ever called into question, I’ll pay for it myself. The Times: Saturday Review. July 31: 14.
Mount, Harry. 2010. The riveting riddle of the enduring detective The timeless appeal of Sherlock Holmes is due to Conan Doyle’s powers of observation. Daily Telegraph. July 27: 18.
O’Sullivan, Kevin. 2010. The sleuth truth. Sunday Star. August 1: 23.
Poole, Mike. 1984. The cult of the generalist: British television criticism 1936–83. Screen 25: 2: 41–61.
Preston, John. 2010. Sherlock’s elementary failings. Sunday Telegraph, Section Seven. August 1: 35.
Redman, Christopher. 2009. Sherlock Holmes handbook. Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Rixon, Paul. 2006. American television on British screens: A story of cultural interaction. Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
_____. 2011. TV critics and popular culture: A history of British television criticism. London: I.B. Tauris.
Robertson, Colin. 2010. Holmes: I turned down Dr Who job; 7.5m See sherlock tvbiz exclusive. Sun. July 27: 1.
Ross, Ally. 2010. Random TV irritations: The BBC. Sun. July 27: 13.
Routledge, Paul. 2010. Who gives a tinker’s cuss. Daily Mirror. July 30: 33.
Segal, Victoria. 2010. Critic’s choice Sunday Times, Culture. August 1: 60.
Shelley, Jim. 2010. Masterchef’s celebs overcook the drama. Daily Mirror. July 26: 21.
Stephenson, David. 2010. The fab Baker St. boys. Sunday Express. July 25: 60–61.
Sunday Times. 2010. What fun, Watson, whipping a corpse. August 1: 19.
Wollaston, Sam. 2010. The weekend’s TV: Sherlock has a great new take on the characters—but what happened to the plot? Guardian, G2. July 26: 25.