![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Sherlock 1x01 - A Study in Pink
So. Sherlock. I’ll start out by saying that I loved it and am looking forward immensely to the next episode.
I'm not an afficionado of Sherlock Holmes, although I've read some of ACD's stories and remember watching Jeremy Brett, for many the definitive Holmes, on the telly in the 1980s. When I originally saw the trailers for this version, and before I knew who was behind it, I was going to watch on the basis that Martin Freeman had been cast as Doctor Watson, and he's one of those actors whose name will entice me to watch a show if I know he's in it!
I have mixed feelings about Steven Moffat, as anyone who reads my DW ramblings will know. I don't doubt his abilities as a writer, he's got a wicked sense of humour and he's clever; and both of those things come over in his writing. Cleverness and humour are things that really appeal to me and Sherlock didn't disappoint on either count, and I think Moffat's talents are incredibly well suited to something like this, where he can let his dry wit, cleverness and ability to construct plots and mysteries have free rein.
It's hard - nigh on impossible - to watch and write about Sherlock without having the ghost of the Doctor peering over your shoulder, because the parallels are so obvious. All the interviews I've heard/read/seen over the past few days have picked up on them, so I'm not going to. Instead, I had a few thoughts about the construction or content of DW versus Sherlock.
Given what I said about not having read many of Holmes' original adventures, I could well be making completely inappropriate assumptions here... but it strikes me that the emphasis in the stories is on the mystery and on Holmes' skill in deduction and how he pieces the evidence together. I really don't know if there's a lot of character development in either Holmes or Watson (I do know that Watson gets married at some point!) but of course the character interaction between the two men is one of the key elements in the stories. And it strikes me that this is exactly up Moffat's alley. He's got two iconic characters in Holmes and Watson and even the most casual of viewers is going to have a rough idea of who they are. So yes, he has to introduce them to each other but he doesn’t really have to spend a lot of time introducing them to the audience. He can jump headlong into the plot and get straight down to the witty dialogue, which was a delight.
But this is what he’s done in DW as well, which, for some of us, hasn’t worked in the same way.
Sam Wollaston in The Guardian said this in his review –
I’m still mulling over how exactly to express myself about why I think Moff’s strengths play perfectly to the one and not so perfectly to the other; and I find myself thinking that maybe Sherlock is the Who that Moffat really wants to write. Intelligent and funny, but without forging any of the emotional connections we’ve come to expect from DW courtesy of his predecessor.
I know I’ll probably get lynched in some quarters for saying that, so as this isn’t a post about DW or a post bashing Moffat, I’ll leave it for now.
I thought the casting was perfect. Benedict Cumberbatch ( that must be his real name because I can’t imagine anyone wanting to saddle themselves with something like that!) was excellent as Holmes – cocksure, impatient, and utterly brilliant. I liked the fact that LeStrade wasn’t made out to be a total idiot – that he was “man enough” to admit when he was struggling on a case and call Holmes in, regardless of how he feels about him. And there was definitely a sense of mutual respect between the two, despite Holmes’ put-downs and dismissals. I think his comment about Holmes having the potential to be a good man was one of the most perceptive things said all episode. (The other was the female officer’s one about Sherlock getting off on solving murders to the extent that one day, he could end up as the perpetrator of one). As Watson, Martin Freeman was perfect. I think he’s a wonderful actor, surely already one of our finest character actors and he gave a finely balanced and understated performance. It’s tough to play second fiddle and just be the “normal” bloke, but he did it brilliantly. Despite everything he’s been through, his Watson still had a mischievous spark, deep-down; he was intelligent and fiercely loyal and certainly NOT the “old-duffer” he’s so often been portrayed as in the past. I LOVED that Watson saved the day in the end. It pissed me off no end when Amy Pond kept saving the Doctor’s arse in the early part of the series, but it worked here to have the sidekick saving the hero and thus proving himself worthy of the spare bedroom at 221b Baker Street.
And then there was Mark Gatiss’ turn as Mycroft. I suppose we were initially meant to think he was Moriarty, (with the “arch-enemy” comment), but I didn’t think that for longer than about two seconds. I hadn’t realized he was actually going to be appearing onscreen (which could just be because I haven’t been scouring teh interwebz for details), but he was fabulously oily and superior.
But for all that I thoroughly enjoyed the programme, the ending left me feeling a bit flat. (Why does that sound familiar?) The murderer (a very creepy Phil Davis) is dying and entices his victims into taking pill containing a lethal dose of something or other? (Which of course is something that Holmes would be unable to resist.) There doesn’t appear to be any reason for his choice of victim – although I suppose this could be revisited in another episode – and then in rather a WTF? moment, we got a mention of Moriarty being somehow involved. So I suppose it’s a case of all being revealed in the fullness of time.
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable 90 minutes of Sunday night telly. And I can’t remember the last time I was able to place all those words together in the same sentence!
I’ll be away when the next episode is on :( Thank God for Sky+!
I'm not an afficionado of Sherlock Holmes, although I've read some of ACD's stories and remember watching Jeremy Brett, for many the definitive Holmes, on the telly in the 1980s. When I originally saw the trailers for this version, and before I knew who was behind it, I was going to watch on the basis that Martin Freeman had been cast as Doctor Watson, and he's one of those actors whose name will entice me to watch a show if I know he's in it!
I have mixed feelings about Steven Moffat, as anyone who reads my DW ramblings will know. I don't doubt his abilities as a writer, he's got a wicked sense of humour and he's clever; and both of those things come over in his writing. Cleverness and humour are things that really appeal to me and Sherlock didn't disappoint on either count, and I think Moffat's talents are incredibly well suited to something like this, where he can let his dry wit, cleverness and ability to construct plots and mysteries have free rein.
It's hard - nigh on impossible - to watch and write about Sherlock without having the ghost of the Doctor peering over your shoulder, because the parallels are so obvious. All the interviews I've heard/read/seen over the past few days have picked up on them, so I'm not going to. Instead, I had a few thoughts about the construction or content of DW versus Sherlock.
Given what I said about not having read many of Holmes' original adventures, I could well be making completely inappropriate assumptions here... but it strikes me that the emphasis in the stories is on the mystery and on Holmes' skill in deduction and how he pieces the evidence together. I really don't know if there's a lot of character development in either Holmes or Watson (I do know that Watson gets married at some point!) but of course the character interaction between the two men is one of the key elements in the stories. And it strikes me that this is exactly up Moffat's alley. He's got two iconic characters in Holmes and Watson and even the most casual of viewers is going to have a rough idea of who they are. So yes, he has to introduce them to each other but he doesn’t really have to spend a lot of time introducing them to the audience. He can jump headlong into the plot and get straight down to the witty dialogue, which was a delight.
But this is what he’s done in DW as well, which, for some of us, hasn’t worked in the same way.
Sam Wollaston in The Guardian said this in his review –
I had a nagging sense of recognition throughout. There's something about the pace of it, and the comedy; even the youthful hero with the cheek and the cheekbones and the geeky chic - charming, attractive, but asexual . . . what is it reminding me of? And then it came to me! It's no surprise I suppose, given who's behind it, but I think Steven Moffat has created Sherlock Whoms.
I’m still mulling over how exactly to express myself about why I think Moff’s strengths play perfectly to the one and not so perfectly to the other; and I find myself thinking that maybe Sherlock is the Who that Moffat really wants to write. Intelligent and funny, but without forging any of the emotional connections we’ve come to expect from DW courtesy of his predecessor.
I know I’ll probably get lynched in some quarters for saying that, so as this isn’t a post about DW or a post bashing Moffat, I’ll leave it for now.
I thought the casting was perfect. Benedict Cumberbatch ( that must be his real name because I can’t imagine anyone wanting to saddle themselves with something like that!) was excellent as Holmes – cocksure, impatient, and utterly brilliant. I liked the fact that LeStrade wasn’t made out to be a total idiot – that he was “man enough” to admit when he was struggling on a case and call Holmes in, regardless of how he feels about him. And there was definitely a sense of mutual respect between the two, despite Holmes’ put-downs and dismissals. I think his comment about Holmes having the potential to be a good man was one of the most perceptive things said all episode. (The other was the female officer’s one about Sherlock getting off on solving murders to the extent that one day, he could end up as the perpetrator of one). As Watson, Martin Freeman was perfect. I think he’s a wonderful actor, surely already one of our finest character actors and he gave a finely balanced and understated performance. It’s tough to play second fiddle and just be the “normal” bloke, but he did it brilliantly. Despite everything he’s been through, his Watson still had a mischievous spark, deep-down; he was intelligent and fiercely loyal and certainly NOT the “old-duffer” he’s so often been portrayed as in the past. I LOVED that Watson saved the day in the end. It pissed me off no end when Amy Pond kept saving the Doctor’s arse in the early part of the series, but it worked here to have the sidekick saving the hero and thus proving himself worthy of the spare bedroom at 221b Baker Street.
And then there was Mark Gatiss’ turn as Mycroft. I suppose we were initially meant to think he was Moriarty, (with the “arch-enemy” comment), but I didn’t think that for longer than about two seconds. I hadn’t realized he was actually going to be appearing onscreen (which could just be because I haven’t been scouring teh interwebz for details), but he was fabulously oily and superior.
But for all that I thoroughly enjoyed the programme, the ending left me feeling a bit flat. (Why does that sound familiar?) The murderer (a very creepy Phil Davis) is dying and entices his victims into taking pill containing a lethal dose of something or other? (Which of course is something that Holmes would be unable to resist.) There doesn’t appear to be any reason for his choice of victim – although I suppose this could be revisited in another episode – and then in rather a WTF? moment, we got a mention of Moriarty being somehow involved. So I suppose it’s a case of all being revealed in the fullness of time.
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable 90 minutes of Sunday night telly. And I can’t remember the last time I was able to place all those words together in the same sentence!
I’ll be away when the next episode is on :( Thank God for Sky+!
no subject
If I remember the books correctly (I did read all the stories at some point!) no there isn't a lot of character development of Holmes and Watson - it's all about the mystery and how Holmes brilliantly deducts the truth. Watson is sometimes comic relief and sometimes saves the day. I also never thought about slashing Holmes and Watson from the books - that only started with Guy Ritchie's Holmes for me, and it certainly will continue with Moffat's!!!
I suspect there is an arc in there as well which would explain the strange ending.
But yes very enjoyable indeed!
no subject
I'm not a slasher by nature (!), but I can't help thinking that was Moff paying a bit of lip-service to those who have been complaining about his not including 'alternative sexualities' in DW.
no subject
Like you, I enjoyed it very much, precisely because of my lack of emotional investment. I've never before cared for Sherlock Holmes so I was watching out of a mixture of curiosity and to worship at the shrine of a cultural icon (Wasn't that first mention of 212B Baker St a joy - you could feel SM and MG hugging themselves with delight?). I fancied BC far more than I should, but I was also impressed by the background they gave Watson and the way his actions progressed organically from his military background and character (a lesson rarely applied in DW where the denouement tends to come out of thin air). I loved the chase scene, very reminiscent of Billie and CE holding hands over Westminster Bridge in "Rose" and the establishing shot of Watson forgetting all about his crutch. Plus, I thought they established the absolute primacy of Central London as a background without resorting to hansom cabs and pea-soupers. The location filming was superb.
no subject
Sometimes the camaraderie felt a little forced, but I'm sure that'll fade.
no subject
no subject
I suppose what I was trying to say - and it's still hard to find the right words - is that in Sherlock, Moff can concentrate on the things he clearly likes to concentrate on - plot, humour, dialogue - and not bother too much about characterisation and helping the audience to forge an emotional connection with the characters, because thst's not really what SH is about. And of course, for many DW fans, it's not what they think DW should be about either. But here, Moffat was able to give us enough to make us care about and begin to identify with Watson, but becuase he didn't need to go any further, it didn't matter or leave people like me feeling that something was missing. Does that make any sense whatsoever?!
I think that BC has a look of Matt Smith about him - small, pale eyes, prominent cheekbones and a general look of "otherworldliness" (Matt was up for the role, apparently).
I thought of the Westminster Bridge scene as well!
I noticed that "Shut up - I'm thinking!" got a repeat airing ;-)