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. 

The game Mrs.Hudson, is on. NEW BBC Holmes is perfection

The lord thy God Steven Moffat and his pal Mark Gatiss, both avid Sherlockians, have created in this Sherlock set in modern London a perfectly honest and authentic Holmes and Watson. If Benedict Cumberbatch and  Martin Freeman were worried they may be badly compared to other actors who have played the roles recently, there was no need to have worried.  Where Guy Ritchie (his pile of wank reviewed here), who never read Holmes, fails utterly, Steven  Moffat succeeds beyond his wildest dreams. While Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke willl always be the  Holmes and Watson of Queen Victoria,  these two will be the Holmes and Watson of Queen Elizabeth.

A Study in Pink is the retelling of A Study in Scarlet and yet it is so much more. It is the setting of in our minds of the main characters, we will with luck, now follow for many years. I'm sorry to say that if Doctor Who show runner Moffat thinks he can just walk away from this now after three eps, he's got another thing coming. Like Doyle, this will now become a creature of his making, becoming bigger than the author. We must have more. I can tell that three stories will not be enough.  This new Sherlock is so well made it erases both the bad taste in my mouth left over from Robert Downey rubbish and creates a space next to the towering reputations of Basil Rathbone, and Jeremy Brett.

As amazed , nay gobsmacked as I am at the level of quality and detail in the Holmes and Lestrade characters, it's Watson who truly rises to the occasion here. Let's step back a bit .....According to my JackTracy, Watson would have been in his early 30's late 20's when he would have met Holmes. Clearly a young man with medical skills and the military bearing of a recently demobbed soldier. With no fixed address or love life to encumber him , the man would be free to seek the pleasure of less mundane thrills with Sherlock Holmes. Such a man as this is neither bumbling nor old. He is in fact young robust and still used to the structure of command and field danger. Watson is AS smart as Lestrade, Watson is also his own man, who will not be told by somebody else what he can or cannot do.  This Watson is a pleasure to behold. How much better would the Rathbone films had been if he'd been played this way.  To say more would be to give the story away , but suffice to say that you will not be the slightest bit surprised at what he does and when.

Back to Holmes now. Our Holmes , the Holmes we grew up reading, the Holmes so ably played by Brett and written by the Granada people, is a complex person. And yet this complete person shows up on screen from the first time we see him. His eyes , his gestures, his attitude to people around him is spot on. The truly genius bit is to make Sherlock 2010 a forensic specialist. What a great way to insure he is never far from any cases that could arise. I especially appreciate the care taken to insure that every aspect of his character is made clear early in as much as he is not particularly interested in romance and is not gay. It would have been so easy to play him so, but that's not Sherlock Holmes. "I'm married to my work" in case Watson was somehow interested in something more. There is more to come I'm sure , but the true essential Holmes is there from the intellect, to the intense curiosity as well as the need to find a cure from everyday boredom. He knows he's better than anybody else, he sees forests where others see only blades of grass and the odd pebble. Holmes is the towering living embodiment of the Alpha male if brains were the principle requirement.  Not a clubbable man, not one easily tamed by woman kind. 

Mycroft Holmes, his brother, who I spotted right away, bears an uncanny and unsettling resemblance to David Cameron. And this in more than a few ways. His need to watch over his brother, clearly leads him to extreme lengths to insure his brother is alright. Does that mean he's the mysterious Moriarty? I hope not. Mycroft was always his brother's best friend and sounding board when none other would do. They are in fact on fairly decent terms if anything. I am aware that some poetic license is permitted in as much as the need to build suspense in such a story only helps. But let us not forget that Mycroft Holmes IS the British Government and MI5/6 , he would never be part of any criminal enterprise out of boredom or need for profit. He is far too busy with his own work, he is one of the good guys. Besides all of the aforementioned, Mycroft dresses and acts like Mycroft, he's not a squirrely evil professor and he's not afraid to be seen, unlike Moriarty. About that getting out thing, it is nice to see him out and about, as Doyle's Mycroft was somewhat sedentary and unfit, this Mycroft seems to be a bit more mobile and Q like.  Still not sure what the lovely but somewhat dim looking Althea is doing in all this, but I'm sure there's a perfectly good reason for it all. (Insert your own producer's girlfriend jokes here)

Mrs. Hudson plays out well too. She is the perfect land lady and tolerates the sort of behavior Holmes and Watson will throw at her. In fact, I've seen this before. Military men of a certain grade and the University Don like my Uncle, tend to forget sometimes people are not there to serve them at all times. The fact she knows these are men who habitually give and take orders makes them the kind of tenants only a truly understanding woman like her can deal with. I look forward to her kippers and scotch eggs, though I wonder what the new Holmes and Watson are prone to eating now. Most likely gastro pub food and army cooking.


SGT Donovan will get wrong if she continues to insist Holmes is a killer just waiting to happen. He is his own brand of justice, he is a driven man , but he is not a man who would create mayhem to satisfy his own need for excitement. What would it prove to be hunted by himself or the clearly lesser beings at Scotland Yard. No he will always play by the rules, he will not kill to get a thrill. What he could do and has done in cannon, is release a dying man, look the other way when justice needs to be done some other way than the strictly legal sense.  She would do well to remember these things if she is to one day ( and I'm sure it will happen) be saved by this sociopath. 

So fellow Sherlockians, what little gems will you see in this film? Some of them are cracking good.  The Critereon and Stamford show up, The three pipe problem is there, he does some things only true scholars will recognize and marvel at, his addiction to texting is perfect as a replacement for the lost telegram and thrice daily mail round. Even his occasional dabble into mind altering chemicals is mentioned, though due to the fact that unlike the Victorian era, there are regulations on the truly addictive drugs now, Holmes does have a nicotine problem.  His deductive reasoning is as strong as any of the original stories and that my friends is the reason we bother watching this sort of thing. This Sherlock Holmes Is the Holmes of Doyle and Watson, a worthy use of money, talent and locations. My sincerest hope is that somebody at the BBC is already talking series 2.

Nearly forgot, I bet you're wondering what sort of story it is. It's a mystery in the style of  spooks and Midsommer mixed together. A gentle dose of humour and some wonderful use of special effects that aid exposition and demonstrate the methods of deduction as practiced by our hero. The nicest thing is that the story is carried by the actors, not the effects. Filmed in Cardiff, the sets are for all intents and purposes the London of people of a certain class and importance. The interiors are reflective of the people occupying them and you will be comfortable with the decor. There is even a Persian slipper if you look hard enough. Costumes are another thing you'll like. look at the clothes and you'll see the shadows of the older more Victorian order and dress, These are the same people we know and love, just in 2010

Job well done  Moffat and Gatiss .