Sherlock: The sign of three

My wife and I were not in the least bit happy with last night's Sherlock. I say this to point out that despite the strong and negative reaction this ep has elicited from some quarters, these opinions are being rejected out of hand by certain people on the grounds that we are not the show maker, we don't know what we're talking about, what do you mean you didn't like Sherlock? it was brilliant?! We have not allowed our inner child to be more free and unchain the character from the genre. Apparently only other official script writers are allowed to point out that for a 90 minute script there sure was an awful lot of filler, at least three writers help coble this together and linked up poorly and that it took 25 minutes for any kind of mystery to occur and the final solution to the bleeding obvious puzzle made no sense. If you even allow for 15 minutes to elapse before you tune out of boredom, frustration or indifference, that's still 10 minutes longer than the most patient person would of watched.

What then unfolded was a Children in need special (that's telethon filler for those not from the UK) that ran long enough to cover 5 years of Terry Wogan taking cheques from runners for Pudsy. I know Gattis and Moffatt and that guy they were covering for were trying to be clever. And it was , in bits, but not for a full 90 minutes. In fact one of the biggest reasons those of us that hated it were unhappy was that despite at least staying somewhat in character, the ep was in the time slot that normally is reserved for Sherlock the Mystery drama thriller. I might have been ready to forgive even this if the story , such as it was, wasn't so disjointed and incoherent in it's dipping from one genre to the next, at one point becoming a BBC3 drunken youths special revelling in intoxication past the point even Packet of crisps would have gone. If you spent most of the film going WTF and hoping it might start eventually being something, it was for about 5 minutes then went back to utter confusion despite a brilliant portrayal of a socially awkward genius that would have worked if you had wanted to watch Big Bang doing the long awaited Penny Leonard wedding.

I would even  have forgiven it even if it was shit if it was one of  6 or even 12. The fact there is but one more ep left in this series means that there is a 50 50 chance the next one will be as bad or worse or marginally better or effing brilliant. I don't like those odds when deciding to choose something to watch. To mention a mates comment, three slots a year are too valuable to waste on fluff like this. We chose it to avoid all the comedies on the air at the time, we wanted drama, there had been no particular warning that it would be anything but a drama only to become a Colin Firth spectacular available on DVD for free in next weekends Daily Mail. Of course we were going to be confused and eventually angry. But just try saying that in front of some people....

And what kind of people are we that we deserve censure? The kind of people that watch a wide range of programmes and cultural content, we consider ourselves relatively open minded and intelligent only to be routinely treated to a  hyperbole of terms regularly used to suppress any difference of opinion that doesn't show due deference to his holiness The Lord Thy God Steven Moffat. How often have we or even you, yes you been right all along, totally fact based, completely sure of your information  only to be told by these wise things that they were sure you're wrong and anyway they know better. This happened several times to my wife with Doctor Who and the keepers of the faith. When rumbled by the Who docufilm confirming my wife's assertions, these people just pretended like they knew it all along, enough to make you scream.

A prime example  is this most recent quote from a Who blogger that has more than once pushed his weight around talking long enough to insure nobody else gets a word in edge wise lest he be proved at fault. But, and this is really important, this blogger thought it was great. And he, also, thinks that anyone that didn't think it was great is bloody stupid. Not just a little bit stupid but what-little-brains-they-have-dribbling-out-of-their-ears stupid. And, I don't want to talk to them. I mean, there are, of course, also people who believe NASA faked the moon landings and the world is run by giants lizards. They're also quite vocal on the Internet, I've noticed. And, are also worth ignoring.

I bet even Moffat has been heard uttering the words "I don't think it was that good" or "I might have done this better if ...." , "Boss I need more time to fix this awful script". But with people like the above rapping the fingers of those of us who do in fact know, have information and are used to a certain level of quality, we are either rendered mute to avoid offence or pretend to be overjoyed just to keep the peace.
    

The fact is that even producers of big shows with big ratings can and do get it wrong, these people are doing a job, for big money, but if they do it less well than they did it last week, we may not watch next week. And if enough people don't watch next week and the week after, programmes get cancelled. That's why those of us who watch and have opinions matter, and why those of us who write for those who watch, must pay heed to those opinions. Treating the big shots like they are infallible, leads to massive egos and even bigger divergences from the norm, whatever the norm is. By setting the bar as high as Gatiss and Moffat did with the first three eps, they opened themselves up to us saying " That sucked, I hated it because.." and they have to listen.

There is another big lie out there. Calling somebody a creator when they have only taken over an existing project that has a history and reasonable expectations, justifies them making wholesale changes to something and expecting the fan base, the network and the advertisers to go along with what ever personal project they have. Add to that the real risk that when you take on another giant like Sherlock and try to make two quality programmes at the same time, you will likely start to get sloppy on both and confuse the two shows for the same thing  when they are not.

This has now occurred and some of us have had the temerity to say so. I love Doctor Who, I love Sherlock, but if this is the future, we should prepare ourselves for the time when both are gone for good. I for one will no longer bother with Sherlock , we can only pray the combination of Peter Capaldi and a more focused Who crew will produce something  that vaguely resembles a story as they aren't now saddled with nearly as much work.

Oh and Happy 160th Birthday Sherlock Holmes, I was hoping for a better present but there wasn't anything nice in the shops so I got you this Tardis usb hub, hope you like it. 

Robert Downey's Sherlock Holmes or Guy Ritchie takes the piss

He would have made a better Holmes

I wrote a review of the film Sherlock Holmes in December '09, before the BBC's excellent  Sherlock (reviewed here) aired and before we knew there would be a sequel to the odious pile of droppings in question. I include it now as I think it bears repeating. If it saves even one poor soul from buying the DVD or renting it, I have done my job.

And now let us go back in time, It's a few hours after I've been forced to sit through the film, lost my scarf at the show and only having just returned from a gathering of Sherlockians that would normally have been discussing Holmes, Doctor Who, Corrie, life and of course enjoyed the fine knosh on offer by our hostess. We Instead,  spent the evening wondering how we were going to explain to new recruits why the stories we read and study in no way resemble the dreck they saw and hope they decide to stay anyways. In case you're wondering, we got no new members worth keeping, one ruined a meeting and was asked to leave before it became a complete loss. Now close your eyes and go back, back back.........It's cold and I'm wondering where it all went so badly wrong.

I write this as a charter member for over 20 years of a Sherlock Holmes Society. Our lot was invited en mass to a preview screening of the new Holmes film by Guy Ritchie. Besides being a crass marketing attempt complete with bribery by posters, promotional material like cheap plastic cups and other assorted rubbish including recycled material from other films ( they gave us a key off some fantasy thing re-stamped Sherlock Holmes), the move was designed to get a good review from ANY Sherlockian. Well it is this Sherlockian's duty as a Sherlockian and lover of good films, to warn you  DO NOT GO see this aberration. Why you ask ? Where do I start????

Well lets start with the basic requirements of any entertaining film. It fails in every important way possible. It's badly cast,  badly acted, poorly written, overly violent for no apparent reason , the story makes little or no sense, lasting apx 120 minutes but feeling like 4 hours. It's called Sherlock Holmes, but resembles Holmes about as much as a fat hamster resembles a cheetah. It could have been called Indiana Bond v the Evil doer ninjas and not have changed a single word save a few names, it was that removed from even being slightly about Sherlock Holmes.  But since I was made to sit in plain view of the promo monkeys, I could hardly walk out at the 15th minute when I wanted to.  Had I left, I would not have seen the complete list of atrocities inflicted on movie goers in the name of Guy Ritchie's bank account and Robert Downey's ego. And so having been made to watch this, I will tell you in exquisite detail why it's 2 hours of my life I would have preferred watching repeats of old industrial films or having a root canal.

Oh Yes!

As a Sherlockian I can tell you it treats the core characters with as much respect as an illiterate bully looking for porn mags at the library. Holmes should have no difficulty paying the rent as he's quite wealthy. Holmes and Watson do not have gambling problems, Holmes is not a slob, Irene Adler is not a master criminal but an actress/singer. As for the whole Mary Morstan story, Holmes is the one who hooks her up with Doctor Watson in the stories. So for Holmes on film to be jealous and to make trouble is insane and clearly he can't use deduction on her as he already knows her.. Holmes and Watson never come to blows and Mrs Hudson is Scottish and not afraid of Holmes. One tiny detail... Holmes and Watson do not own a dog of any kind, let alone a dead ringer for a certain insurance selling bulldog. Oh Yes ! Can you say product placement? For the writers to take a few over the top episodes from the books and wrap them in rubbish does not  make for an alleged accurate portrayal with a twist. As for the costuming, it's a dogs breakfast of styles from 1840 through to 1925, Rachel Mcadams in particular is dressed so poorly for the period, it's clear this was never ever made as anything but a cash grab at horny teenagers who can't afford internet porn. There are more cockneys per square inch than there were in London at the time and there appear to be only a handful of upper class people and they are all without exception, Evil. London was not an eternal lunar landscape forgotten by the sun and the constant less than subtle reminders that Ritchie once made Lock Stock and two smoking barrels means the film was never more than a sad call for attention from a film maker who's last few films have been without exception, turkeys. 

So what's the story?

Holmes has to stop a megalomaniac from taking over the world through alleged Satan worship, but is in fact Kabbala. The baddie who dresses like a Nazi from 1933 and speaks like one, wants to create a new world
order. Where have we heard that one before? Oh yeah, Indiana Jones or was that WW2?

The greatest offence, as if what I already mentioned wasn't enough, is the clear use of Jewish iconography and objects to create a sense of evil and danger. My wife, one of millions who can read Hebrew, was shocked to see the following.

1- A passage supposedly from the Kabbala , a practice that was so deeply shunned at the time by Jews, it was cause for hoying out of the congregation. The passage purported to be about a ritual with animal parts was in fact a text about the elements of life and completely harmless.

2- At one point, the film casts evil intent on the character of some high nobles with the inclusion of a richly decorated ceremonial box. The box in fact is a Tzadakah box or charity box. You select a cause
to donate to and drop your change in to eventually give it to the charity  of your choice. To elevate such an object of good to symbol of evil and danger is the same as equating a breast feeding mother to
that of a murderer.

It gets worse

3- During the film there is a massive overly long, slow motion explosion. The music played is the same as is used in every WW2 special about the concentration camps. It was creepy and unsettling.

4- Lastly they plan to kill off most of the members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons by using a device to activate poisonous pellets that will send the deadly smoke into the House of Commons turning it into a gas chamber.

This film is flawed in so many ways, but the use of Jewish symbols and sacred items in combination with the gas chamber imagery  is beyond the pale. My wife's family only barely survived the camps. For Guy Ritchie to think this was ok to do, is sickening . As a Holmes film it fails, as an action adventure it's a complete mess from beginning to end, not having any particular hook or creation of tension onto likeable characters.  Lastly it is offensive to any person who knows their history .. I can only hope this film dies a quick death and Guy Ritchie is exposed for the insensitive piece of work he is.

My last word on this, if you want to watch quality Holmes stories,stick to ITV's Jeremy Brett. If you want explosions and action, perhaps Avatar might be worth seeing. But at all cost avoid this piece of dog's droppings . It's not worth the price of admission, even if you don't read Hebrew.

Looking forward to the John Lennon bio pic reviewed here, should be much better.