Holmes Vs Holmes: Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller

MillerBatch

Written by Prof Jenn.

 

Though to me the best portrayal overall of Sherlock Holmes will always be Jeremy Brett , I thought it’d be fun and instructive to plunge into a comparison between two contemporary portrayals of the famous detective.

Now, I know very well that for many modern Sherlockians, ya either love Sherlock and hate Elementary, or vice-versa. I, however, am approaching these portrayals both as someone who knows how to analyze writing (and who knows my literary Sherlock backwards and forwards), and someone trained in acting, who knows how to analyze performance, and knows what specifically she’s looking at when she looks at a performance. I am not taking sides, merely showing my objective views on two portrayals. So. Here we go:

d0e085b4bb0079cb26f75208a4ee18e5

Back in the days of court jesters, there’d be two kinds of “fool”: those that were known as natural, and those that were artificial. Those that were called “natural” fools were those with some kind of genetic defect: dwarfism, or a developmental disorder, or a mental illness. Those that came to the profession as “artificial” fools were those that were otherwise sound in body and mind, but chose the role: they studied multiple subjects in-depth, they cultivated juggling and acrobatic and improvisation skills, memorized family trees and social gossip, and in all other ways made themselves into the jester.

Though Cumberbatch’s Sherlock tells Watson in ‘The Abominable Bride’ that “No one made me. I made me,” his portrayal is still more on the “natural” Sherlock side of the fence than most other contemporary Holmes portrayals. He is rude to the point of autism spectrum to everyone around him (only learning his way into manners as episodes progress), he gets swept away in his brainwork to an almost trance-like degree, and though we see his fighting skills are competent, it’s his scintillating brain (and his relationship with action-addict Watson) that’s the centre of Cumberbatch’s portrayal. In the books, Holmes is rarely rude to his clients or the Scotland Yarders: he may express impatience briefly, or make a veiled dig at Lestrade whom he knows well, but other than that, he’ll comment aside to Watson that Inspector so-and-so is an imbecile but tenacious as a lobster, but to Inspector so-and-so’s face, he’s all politeness and professionalism.

Not so the Cumberbatch Sherlock– he’ll tell Anderson he’s making an excellent impression of an idiot and slam doors in his face, bark at his clients that they’re boring, and taunt Lestrade with the fact that he missed everything of importance. This seems to work perfectly in the contemporary London setting, somehow, and Freeman’s immensely solid portrayal of Watson only helps. Cumberbatch is an incredibly well-chiselled young man as well (hey, I’m not made of stone), and so his sex-symbol style also is in good alignment with his intense aloofness. That Cumberbatch is classically trained and has experience onstage is apparent as he is able to tackle the most massive of monologues with aplomb, and no amount of complexity of text is too much for him. He also has that live-theatre-actor’s way of having voice and physicality finely tuned and in sync together.

file_204291_0_Jonny_Lee_Miller_2

Elementary’s Sherlock, Miller is more the artificial fool than the natural, though he has moments of twitchy eccentricity in his posture and vocal inflection. This Sherlock isn’t nearly as socially inept as Cumberbatch’s, though he dwells in the same contemporary time period (a different city, though: New York instead of London). He has sex with women, talks to Watson about her relationships and their own friendship, and shows depth of character in his dealing with his addiction and the friends he’s made since coming to New York. Miller’s Sherlock works closely with the NYPD as consultant: Detective Bell and Captain Gregson may be left behind when Sherlock is on a scent, but he always catches them up with respect, lets them do their jobs (for the most part), and, like Doyle’s Holmes, often plops piles of evidence into the official police’s hands, to let them take care of the essentials.

What sets Miller’s Sherlock apart from especially Cumberbatch’s is his vulnerability, his humanity. Not only have we met brother Mycroft in this series, but father Morland as well, leading to many backstories and humanizing of what Doyle’s Watson called “a calculating machine.” His relationship with Adler/Moriarty and especially Watson have put the character through real emotional journeys through the show’s four seasons, and his working through addiction, into sobriety, struggling with the contemporary treatment program, gives him a vulnerability that works perfectly with his superhuman powers of the brain. Like Doyle’s Holmes, too, he explains to Watson at every turn how he makes his leaps of logic, why he engages in the odd habits he does, and etc. Liu’s Watson, like Freeman’s, is solid as a rock, too–in fact, she starts out as this Sherlock’s sober companion, and so already we’ve got a Watson who is the person upon whom Sherlock can most rely.

Miller, too, is classically trained and has much experience on the live stage. In this case, it shows in his immense energy, his impeccable physicality–he obviously has a series of specific psychological gestures and habits he has cultivated particularly for this role. The scripts for Elementary aren’t nearly as complex as those in Sherlock, mainly because the one is a British series with three 90-minute “episodes” (read: movies) per series, while the other is an American police procedural with at least 20 episodes per season. Perforce the characters will be different because the writing has to be so. But methinks they both are very well done overall.

Anyone see the stage production of Frankenstein that both Cumberbatch and Miller traded leads in? If they did that with their Sherlock Holmeses, the contrast of both men’s styles would be enlightening to see…

 

Who is your favourite Sherlock Holmes? Vote in our poll:

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Holmes Vs Holmes: Benedict Cumberbatch and Jonny Lee Miller

  1. Johnny Lee Miller is just not in the same class as Benedict Cumberbatch IMHO. Saw Frankenstein (both versions) and was so very impressed with BC, but not so much with JLM (thought him too stiff and that he yelled his lines).

    Like

  2. I enjoy both Sherlocks very much. They are different beasts. One gives me a weekly dose of holmes that i love (Miller is so very talented) and one i wait patiently for and then rewatch incessantly because the Cumberbatch/Freeman team up works so well. Also, i enjoy the Guy Richie movies with RDJ and Jude Law as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. I’m an equal opportunity Sherlockian. I love Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock (my favorite), but I also love Robert Downey Jr’s, and Jonny Lee Miller’s. All three of them are all kinds of awesome.

    Like

  4. Tough one as I really liked Elementary when I finally gave it a chance. Love both actors, both joint second to JB. Voted only for JLM cos I knew he’d get lower votes on this page.

    Like

  5. Yes, both Sherlock Holmes portrayals are excellent, and most significantly, excellent in different ways.

    You’ve expressed the differences quite well in your post — spot on!

    Also, I’ve watched the Frankenstein play in both versions: I’ve seen Benedict play the creature and the doctor, and same with Jonny playing both roles.

    Strikingly, their differences reflect the sharp intellect that Benedict delivers so well, and Jonny played up the emotional vulnerability.

    As a result Benedict did better as the Doctor (cold, intelligent, sharply sexy), and Jonny did better when he played the Creature (sweet, guileless, beautiful).

    Like

  6. You have fullfiled your statement that this was fun and instructive comparison. But from second paragraph I have got the impression that you are very experienced in analyzing texts. Maybe I misunderstood or misinterpret that paragrapf because of third paragrapf I am quite sure that it has to be my misinterpretation. Because so many “those” and “and’s” (and’s are almost everywhere where should be comma just fine) were/are very annoying.

    Anyway, I disagree that Cumberbatch is well-chiselled. I would say skinny or slim but definitely not well-chiselled. I have to admit that I do not like him much but I also have to admit that he is good choice for Holmes role. Cumberbatch is great actor as you have “said”. 🙂

    Last thing I am disagree with is part where you are comparing scripts of these two shows. Maybe Sherlock has more complex script but it has some holes in it as well. Besides some very stupid situations that are (at least from my point of view) shame for show that meant to be based on logic. Example could be bomb with turn off switch. It is not only one case where logic disappeared but I hope you see my point. As I see it Elementary has problem with proving guilt sometimes (maybe most of time). Yes, they said arguments and logical reason why but those “evidence” are most of time just words and not “real thing” that points at someone. On the other hand Sherlock can find evidence but it seems to me that those evidence are most of time meant just for sake of show. I mean they just pops up without any afford. It is more like If he needs evidence the evidence will magically appears. So perfect would be mix of those two shows. 😀

    As I have said in first line, great article and I hope there will be many more like is this one. 🙂

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s