Post by Teddy Bear on Jan 9, 2012 19:57:01 GMT
Peter Hitchens lambastes the BBC for their recent dire offering about what was a great classic - Sherlock Holmes. The only way for the BBC to succeed in future is to make sure they further dumb down the society, which it appears this presentation will help to achieve.
Sickening case of identity theft for Sherlock
If the BBC had not stolen the name of the great fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, and used it to publicise its soft-porn guns-and-giggles drama series, would fashionable critics have fallen over themselves to praise this slurry?
Perhaps they would. Fashionable critics will praise almost anything. But surely the identity theft is the only thing that holds this crude melodrama together?
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s wonderful creation has found a place in the imaginations of countless millions of people. Until very recently, broadcasters and film-makers were content to stay true to the great storyteller’s original. Doyle himself would have enjoyed Jeremy Brett’s faithful and thoughtful version of Holmes.
What changed? Why must Holmes now suddenly be portrayed as a cruel, spiteful figure who is needlessly nasty to small children and unfortunate people? Why must the central character in a 90-minute drama be an unusually depraved prostitute? Why must Professor Moriarty be transformed into something rather like the Joker in a Batman movie?
Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? There’s no sex in the original stories and remarkably little violence. Instead people think, and have conversations.
So chuck them in the bin, steal Holmes’s name and Doyle’s idea, and twist them for cheap laughs and perverted thrills.
When British broadcasters come to a turn in the path, and they see one arrow saying ‘down’ and another one saying ‘up’, they can be guaranteed to choose the one marked ‘down’, on and on until they reach the bottom. And then down again.
If the BBC had not stolen the name of the great fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, and used it to publicise its soft-porn guns-and-giggles drama series, would fashionable critics have fallen over themselves to praise this slurry?
Perhaps they would. Fashionable critics will praise almost anything. But surely the identity theft is the only thing that holds this crude melodrama together?
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s wonderful creation has found a place in the imaginations of countless millions of people. Until very recently, broadcasters and film-makers were content to stay true to the great storyteller’s original. Doyle himself would have enjoyed Jeremy Brett’s faithful and thoughtful version of Holmes.
What changed? Why must Holmes now suddenly be portrayed as a cruel, spiteful figure who is needlessly nasty to small children and unfortunate people? Why must the central character in a 90-minute drama be an unusually depraved prostitute? Why must Professor Moriarty be transformed into something rather like the Joker in a Batman movie?
Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? There’s no sex in the original stories and remarkably little violence. Instead people think, and have conversations.
So chuck them in the bin, steal Holmes’s name and Doyle’s idea, and twist them for cheap laughs and perverted thrills.
When British broadcasters come to a turn in the path, and they see one arrow saying ‘down’ and another one saying ‘up’, they can be guaranteed to choose the one marked ‘down’, on and on until they reach the bottom. And then down again.