Sherlock 1x03 - The Great Game
Aug. 10th, 2010 06:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
caz963I’ve been feeling like crap for the past few days so I haven’t felt like doing much. Even reading a book has seemed like too much of an effort when I can hardly manage to keep my eyes open for longer than half an hour at a time. Instead I’ve found myself sticking audio books on the mp3 player and dozing in and out of them. On the downside, it means I’ve missed huge chunks of them, but on the upside, who could complain about going to sleep and waking up again to the dulcet tones of gentlemen like David Tennant and Richard Armitage?
There is method in my madness.
I was going to post something about the last episode of Sherlock other than my initial - "Moffat/Gatiss, you bastards how could you leave us hanging like that?!", so here it is while I’m still vaguely awake.
I thought it was a cracking story, as Sherlock races against the clock to solve a series of previously unsolved crimes in order to save the lives of some of the “little people.” Hm. A touch of the Time Lord Victorious there, methinks. But then that’s not so surprising really when the parallels between the two characters are so strong. I said before that I got the feeling that Sherlock (the character) is the Doctor that Moffat really wants to write, and in this episode, I was even further convinced of that. This Holmes is, to my mind, a mixture of One, Six and Seven – crabby, detached, arrogant, manipulative. And of course, the thing he shares with all of them is a total belief in the superiority of his intelligence. Or rather, I should say that the Doctor has taken those traits from Holmes, given that Holmes came first. In our timeline, at least (!)
For me, though, those traits in Sherlock work, whereas they make me uncomfortable when the Doctor exhibits them; even Ten who squeed at werewolves and giant wasps despite being the most “in tune” with humans of all of them. Sherlock being so totally transfixed by the mystery and his need and determination to find the solution as to forget there were people’s lives at stake is what sets him apart – and it’s why he needsa companion Watson. He needs that detachment in order to be able to think clearly, but it makes him somewhat cold and unsympathetic.
Mark Gatiss has been slammed for some of his writing on DW, but I think he redeemed himself here. And for the record, I don’t think he’s a terrible writer (the fact that I can’t stand The Idiot’s Lantern is more down to the fact that it’s such a poor premise which presumably was Rusty’s fault.)
My main criticism is that Lestrade felt a bit flat this week. I thought Moff pitched him perfectly in the opening episode – he wasn’t just some dim plod who was there to show how brilliant Sherlock is by comparison, there was a genuine sense of respect between them and Lestrade could clearly hold his own.
Moriarty seems to have divided opinion, and I’m not surprised. I was immediately struck by the similarities between the character and Jim Keats from Ashes to Ashes - I said to Mr Caz, “is that Ant or Dec?” and then it was all overlaid by a touch of Graham Norton. If it wasn’t for the fact that this was made before the most recent series of DW, I’d have thought it was Moff’s revenge for the sudden appearance of Norton at a crucial point at the end of Flesh and Stone!
After my initial shock though, I have to say that I have no strong feelings either way as yet. I admit, I’ve always had the image of Moriarty as being rather suave and collected – he and Holmes as two sides of the same coin – rather than as someone who appears to be close to the edge of insanity as he appeared to be here; but this is Moriarty after all, and it could all have been an act. But it’s certainly an interesting way to go. I’m not familiar with the actor – but had they cast a big name, it would have been too much of a signpost that dim-Jim from the lab wasn't all he seemed.
Martin Freeman’s Watson really shone this week. Not that he didn’t before, but I like that he’s so quiet and still in his anger until he decides he’s had enough and lets rip. And that when he picks up a gun, there’s no doubt he’s a military man. His admiration for Holmes and his infinite patience with him doesn’t blind him to Holmes’ faults and he’s not afraid to call him on them. He’s Sherlock’s Donna Noble. *g*
The final scene had me on the edge of my seat when he turned up and the possibility that Watson was the mastermind behind it all flashed across my mind. But of course, they couldn’t go there – it’d completely screw up a second series!
(Which, by the way, is on the cards.)
Of course we know deep down that Sherlock cares about Watson. He must do, because he’s obviously not someone who suffers fools and if he didn’t think much of him (Watson), he wouldn’t have given him the time of day. But it was good to see it in that final scene (for the audience AND Watson) – and also for Sherlock to realize that his friend was prepared to die for him. (Again, the Doctor Who parallels just pile up!)
Hopefully we’ll get a second series sometime next year. The article I linked to confirms that they’ll still be ninety minutes long, but doesn’t say how many there will be. Five seems like a good number to me, but who knows? Why has Sherlock done so well in the ratings? Anybody’s guess really, but I imagine the fact that it’s on on a Sunday night in an adult timeslot (and hasn’t been endlessly mucked about with) has helped. We all know that Doctor Who isn’t “just” a kids’ show, but neither is Sherlock “just” a post-watershed show. My eldest (almost 11) has watched and enjoyed them all, and I’m sure that Mark Gatiss has said something to that effect in an interview, that they wanted to create something which had a post-watershed feel to it, but which was nonetheless suitable for younger viewers. Giving Sherlock a later slot acted as a signpost for many viewers who might not bother with something they perceive as being for kids. Also, Sunday night isn’t plagued by bloody I’ve got no talent get me out of here type shows and I suspect the figures were helped by there not being any decent competition. (To be honest though, I’m not sure what it was up against, as I was always going to watch it anyway, so there would have had to have been something pretty damn amazing on the other side. Or, you know, David Tennant reading the phone book.)
I’m not trying to take anything away from Sherlock though – it was bloody good telly. I’m more trying to say that I’m pleased it got seen and appreciated by a decent audience and speculating as to why that might have been, especially as the summer has traditionally been a time of endless repeats and no new shows.
One last thing. Alison Graham, the TV Editor of the Radio Times has, I think, encapsulated the thing that a lot of us have expressed about S5 of DW, even though she’s talking about Sherlock, when she says this:
I’m not saying I agree with her 100%, because I was certainly engaged and thrilled by Sherlock; but that middle paragraph, about wanting to love something rather than admire it isn’t very far removed from the things I’ve said recently about DW, about wanting to feel it rather than just appreciate it.
For some reason, I don’t find that “hollowness” (for want of a better word) so much of a problem here. Possibly that’s because I’m not as familiar with the original characters as I am with DW, and/or because there was no Rusty-reboot to spoil me first.
All this thinking has tired me out. Time for another nap.
There is method in my madness.
I was going to post something about the last episode of Sherlock other than my initial - "Moffat/Gatiss, you bastards how could you leave us hanging like that?!", so here it is while I’m still vaguely awake.
I thought it was a cracking story, as Sherlock races against the clock to solve a series of previously unsolved crimes in order to save the lives of some of the “little people.” Hm. A touch of the Time Lord Victorious there, methinks. But then that’s not so surprising really when the parallels between the two characters are so strong. I said before that I got the feeling that Sherlock (the character) is the Doctor that Moffat really wants to write, and in this episode, I was even further convinced of that. This Holmes is, to my mind, a mixture of One, Six and Seven – crabby, detached, arrogant, manipulative. And of course, the thing he shares with all of them is a total belief in the superiority of his intelligence. Or rather, I should say that the Doctor has taken those traits from Holmes, given that Holmes came first. In our timeline, at least (!)
For me, though, those traits in Sherlock work, whereas they make me uncomfortable when the Doctor exhibits them; even Ten who squeed at werewolves and giant wasps despite being the most “in tune” with humans of all of them. Sherlock being so totally transfixed by the mystery and his need and determination to find the solution as to forget there were people’s lives at stake is what sets him apart – and it’s why he needs
Mark Gatiss has been slammed for some of his writing on DW, but I think he redeemed himself here. And for the record, I don’t think he’s a terrible writer (the fact that I can’t stand The Idiot’s Lantern is more down to the fact that it’s such a poor premise which presumably was Rusty’s fault.)
My main criticism is that Lestrade felt a bit flat this week. I thought Moff pitched him perfectly in the opening episode – he wasn’t just some dim plod who was there to show how brilliant Sherlock is by comparison, there was a genuine sense of respect between them and Lestrade could clearly hold his own.
Moriarty seems to have divided opinion, and I’m not surprised. I was immediately struck by the similarities between the character and Jim Keats from Ashes to Ashes - I said to Mr Caz, “is that Ant or Dec?” and then it was all overlaid by a touch of Graham Norton. If it wasn’t for the fact that this was made before the most recent series of DW, I’d have thought it was Moff’s revenge for the sudden appearance of Norton at a crucial point at the end of Flesh and Stone!
After my initial shock though, I have to say that I have no strong feelings either way as yet. I admit, I’ve always had the image of Moriarty as being rather suave and collected – he and Holmes as two sides of the same coin – rather than as someone who appears to be close to the edge of insanity as he appeared to be here; but this is Moriarty after all, and it could all have been an act. But it’s certainly an interesting way to go. I’m not familiar with the actor – but had they cast a big name, it would have been too much of a signpost that dim-Jim from the lab wasn't all he seemed.
Martin Freeman’s Watson really shone this week. Not that he didn’t before, but I like that he’s so quiet and still in his anger until he decides he’s had enough and lets rip. And that when he picks up a gun, there’s no doubt he’s a military man. His admiration for Holmes and his infinite patience with him doesn’t blind him to Holmes’ faults and he’s not afraid to call him on them. He’s Sherlock’s Donna Noble. *g*
The final scene had me on the edge of my seat when he turned up and the possibility that Watson was the mastermind behind it all flashed across my mind. But of course, they couldn’t go there – it’d completely screw up a second series!
(Which, by the way, is on the cards.)
Of course we know deep down that Sherlock cares about Watson. He must do, because he’s obviously not someone who suffers fools and if he didn’t think much of him (Watson), he wouldn’t have given him the time of day. But it was good to see it in that final scene (for the audience AND Watson) – and also for Sherlock to realize that his friend was prepared to die for him. (Again, the Doctor Who parallels just pile up!)
Hopefully we’ll get a second series sometime next year. The article I linked to confirms that they’ll still be ninety minutes long, but doesn’t say how many there will be. Five seems like a good number to me, but who knows? Why has Sherlock done so well in the ratings? Anybody’s guess really, but I imagine the fact that it’s on on a Sunday night in an adult timeslot (and hasn’t been endlessly mucked about with) has helped. We all know that Doctor Who isn’t “just” a kids’ show, but neither is Sherlock “just” a post-watershed show. My eldest (almost 11) has watched and enjoyed them all, and I’m sure that Mark Gatiss has said something to that effect in an interview, that they wanted to create something which had a post-watershed feel to it, but which was nonetheless suitable for younger viewers. Giving Sherlock a later slot acted as a signpost for many viewers who might not bother with something they perceive as being for kids. Also, Sunday night isn’t plagued by bloody I’ve got no talent get me out of here type shows and I suspect the figures were helped by there not being any decent competition. (To be honest though, I’m not sure what it was up against, as I was always going to watch it anyway, so there would have had to have been something pretty damn amazing on the other side. Or, you know, David Tennant reading the phone book.)
I’m not trying to take anything away from Sherlock though – it was bloody good telly. I’m more trying to say that I’m pleased it got seen and appreciated by a decent audience and speculating as to why that might have been, especially as the summer has traditionally been a time of endless repeats and no new shows.
One last thing. Alison Graham, the TV Editor of the Radio Times has, I think, encapsulated the thing that a lot of us have expressed about S5 of DW, even though she’s talking about Sherlock, when she says this:
SHERLOCK LEFT ME COLD
Throw me a life-jacket, because I’m going to swim against the tide: I thought Sherlock was cold and uninvolving.
Yes, Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman were excellent as Holmes and Watson – I particularly admired the way Cumberbatch caputured Holmes’s “alone-ness”.
But I don’t want to “admire” a drama, I want to love it; I want to be engaged and thrilled, I don’t want to spend 90 minutes thinking “wow, this is technically perfect with a splendid sense of time and pace and I don’t mind the updating of Conan Doyle’s original stories at all.”
That’s like applauding the scenery. I want joy, danger and excitement. Sherlock was beautifully crafted, but hollow.
I’m not saying I agree with her 100%, because I was certainly engaged and thrilled by Sherlock; but that middle paragraph, about wanting to love something rather than admire it isn’t very far removed from the things I’ve said recently about DW, about wanting to feel it rather than just appreciate it.
For some reason, I don’t find that “hollowness” (for want of a better word) so much of a problem here. Possibly that’s because I’m not as familiar with the original characters as I am with DW, and/or because there was no Rusty-reboot to spoil me first.
All this thinking has tired me out. Time for another nap.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 05:42 pm (UTC)This is why I've given up my licence. I don't want to be sitting around waiting a year for the next series, while avoiding a boatload of "I'm a talentless nobody, kick me out of this gameshow" or "gritty" shoutiness. If I knew that there was going to be something of this calibre on every week, or preferably two or three somethings, like there used to be, I'd be OK. But I'm pretty sure that a few more shows like this would be appreciated by a lot of people.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 08:19 pm (UTC)Good drama costs money. We've got talented writers, directors and God knows, actors coming out of our ears over here and yet we're fed a staple diet of (mostly) crap. I don't mind "gritty" if it's done well and there's a point to it, but it's coming to a point where we're lucky if there's more than one decent home-produced show on per week.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 08:34 pm (UTC)Yes, good drama costs money, but so does bad drama. "Silent Witness" used to be excellent, but went on for too long and got bad. For the price of a bad ep of "Silent Witness", they could have made something good. But it's easier to stay with things people know and hope they won't drift away.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 06:55 pm (UTC)Why the popularity? I think maybe because drama on a Sunday evening has always been popular. I think the utter lack of it in recent years is reflected by the fact that people tuned in every week when we finally got something really good. I remember the hoopla when Foyle's War was cancelled and the fans went bats at ITV and got them to recommission a further three eps. That was merely feelgood drama with Michael Kitchen (who I think is a national treasure), so I'm stunned that nobody cottoned onto the fact that there's an audience out there, even in the summer, for more drama. Unless the budgets have got so damn tight and the writers just aren't out there who can produce quality. We're really quick to criticise the channels - but if it's lack of funding and quality of writing? I wish I knew someone with greater insight into this.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 08:32 pm (UTC)I remember back when Upstairs Downstairs was on on a Sunday night. Them were t' days.
I'm sure the pre-publicity for Sherlock helped; I am curious as to whether there would have been quite so much of it had Moffat not been involved though. He's so high-profile because of DW that all the bookers know him so I can't imagine the Sherlock press office had a particularly hard sell to make. But yes, the dearth of anything decent on a Sunday night is undoubtedly a factor as well. Like I said, I was going to watch it anyway, so I don't know what it was up against. As I said to Fenny, we've got a lot of talent here both in front of and behind the camera so I don't believe it's a lack of talent that's stifling things. It's money - I mean, if the Beeb is cutting the budget of it's flagship show (DW) then I can't believe everything else isn't being trimmed as well. And everyone is so notoriously reluctant to gamble these days, as we know. Dennis Potter or Stephen Poliakov probably wouldn't get a look in on telly today.
And - don't we bear some of the blame as well. I don't mean "we" as in you and me and Fenny (!) - I mean the people who actually watch I'm a washed-up no-hoper, get me my career back and others of that ilk. Because if nobody watched it and the companies couldn't sell their advertising space, then they wouldn't make it.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 08:41 pm (UTC)However, I do appreciate the Beeb in particular is hugely under the kosh regarding spending, so financing drama has got to be difficult at the moment. And with the viewing public being so damn fickle when it comes to sticking with dramas, how on earth is anyone expected to take a chance on new writers? I don't blame them for being a touch risk averse at the moment. But people like Moffat, Paul Abbott (don't know what he's currently up to, apart from working at Salford Uni now and again) - surely it's worth spending some of our money on letting them develop their work because they bring an established audience with them.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:35 pm (UTC)There's always some news story in the news bashing the Beeb and the licence fee and it gets on my nerves. How on earth is the BBC going to make programmes if it doesn't get public money? I certainly don't want to see it have to take advertising. The thing I do agree with though is that they need to take a step back from making the sort of programmes that other channels already do just as well and better - the talent shows, the reality shows etc. If they don't have to compete for funding, then they shouldn't be trying to compete for ratings. I'm sure there's stuff to that argument that I'm missing - overseas sales etc (although are we really selling "I'd Do Anything" and that ilk overseas when it's such a UK based thing?) but while I'm happy to pay my licence fee as it is, I don't think that some sort of change in how the money is spent is unusual. But I don't want a radical overhaul, because I think that's asking for disaster.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:57 pm (UTC)I'm also on the lookout for something called "This sinking of the Laconia" which has Andrew Buchan in it and was written by Alan Bleasdale. Who knows when they'll show that, but I know it's been filmed a while ago.
(also - I'm obviously after an icon like yours but with a FAR greater level of arrogance about it)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 09:55 pm (UTC)I thought Moriarty was a Master type of guy really! Ok maybe a bit more camp ;-) I'm on the fence on him really, didn't particularly warm up to the character but also not against him. I'll have to see more of him to pass final judgement.
And well I did love it as well as admire it - the Cumberbatch/Freeman interaction is just too much fun to watch. Chemistry is such a tired old word but I really think they have it.
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:16 pm (UTC)Boring. Bored. Boring. Boring. BORED.
(I clearly also need a BORED! icon)
no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-08-10 10:42 pm (UTC)BORED.