Both run by Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, Sherlock and the new Netflix Dracula have their fair share of similarities, although it is where they differ that tentatively makes the latter a stronger show.
The first days of 2020 were met with the first episodes of Netflix’s new Dracula series. It is not Steven Moffat’s first run with adapting a piece of classic literature into a multi-part series. His adaptation of Sherlock Holmes in the BBC’s Sherlock joins the several dozen on-screen iterations that exist of the detective. For his new show, he once again turns to a many-times-adapted character, giving the vampire his own spin.
The first two episodes of Dracula are set in the late 1800s and follow the interviews and investigations of Agatha Van Helsing (Dolly Wells) as she confronts and combats her undead foe. Both episodes bear a trace of the investigative nature of Sherlock; much of their runtime is dedicated to Van Helsing interviewing first Jonathan Harker (John Heffernan) and then the monster himself to get an understanding for how vampires operate. In the second episode, Dracula (Claes Bang) himself plays the role of false detective.
Netflix’s Dracula And Sherlock Both Rely On A Stylized Storytelling Style
Sherlock’s highly stylized directorial style was one of the first draws for fans when the show went on-air. Clues appearing onscreen gave audiences insight into Sherlock’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) thought process, making them feel involved. Although Moffat complained of a low budget during his run in Doctor Who, Dracula clearly has been given the required financial backing for effects that are high-quality and believable. It is filled with zoom-ins on micro-details of the gore, slow-motion blood dripping. Actions are visually rewound in an attempt to be understood by characters. The show abounds with camera flourishes.
The Character Work In Dracula Promises More Than Sherlock Ever Delivered
The character work in Dracula is strong, a combination of well-crafted writing and strong acting. From her first appearance, Van Helsing’s probing cleverness is apparent. This serves as a point of hope for developing what went underdeveloped in Sherlock. Characters in that show stagnated, where these show hope of evolving. However, like in the Sherlock, characters in Dracula have a penchant for announcing themselves. “I’m not a psychopath, I’m a high-functioning sociopath” can be found printed on all kinds of Sherlock paraphernalia, an assessment of the protagonist by himself that is echoed in Van Helsing’s response to Dracula asking who she is: “Your every nightmare at once. An educated woman in a crucifix.”
One of the major ways Dracula departs from Sherlock is in its willingness to split cleverness among the characters. In Sherlock, speeches abound. A good portion of each episode is spent on Sherlock relegating to a room of gaping inferiors how he has solved the mystery and why they couldn’t see it. Dracula is also rife with speeches, although these are more evenly shared among characters. Several characters present the confidence and intelligence of Sherlock, including female characters, which may be a solution to another issue in Moffat-run media. Dracula gets to define himself and strut, but so does Agatha Van Helsing, and so does the Mother Superior.
Dracula is a show clearly created by the same creators as Sherlock, from its flair for the visual to its loquacious characters. However, where Sherlock relies entirely on one intelligent man to represent the intellect of the show, Dracula allows background characters their moments of brilliance. With the show’s timeline catching up to the modern day, it aligns itself even more closely with Sherlock. It also presents the all-encompassing mystery of why Dracula fears the cross. The hope for viewers is that, unlike the plot-hole ridden Sherlock, Dracula will deliver as well on its mystery as it has on its horror.
Next: Netflix: The Best New TV Shows & Movies This Weekend (January 3)
