Sherlock and Kansas
I finally watched the first two seasons of BBC' Sherlock. Yes, Benedict Cumberbatch is dreamy, but I'm still more of a Martin Freeman fan, after seeing him first in The Office (UK version), and then in Love, Actually (in which he plays a sex scene stunt double), and finally in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. The latter film, which didn't seem to receive much love, was perfectly cast, I think. Alan Rickman was great as Marvin the Paranoid Android, and Martin Freeman is Arthur Dent. (Apparently, he's also Bilbo Baggins).
Anyway, there is nothing to do but wait for Season 3, I suppose. It was a pretty fair adaption of The Final Problem, the episode in which Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was getting sick and tired of Holmes and simply wanted to kill him off, but his fans wouldn't let him. So, how did Holmes get out of this one, we're supposed to wonder? My guess is that it had something to do with his meeting with the chemist woman who has a crush on him. Something improbable and scientific was involved. And, of course, if the series holds true to the book, Mycroft was in on it the whole time.
I wonder whether they'll resurrect Moriarty? In the book, that would have been the final curtain for him, but I imagine the TV series might feel compelled to bring him back as a token to his fans.
As I was watching the series, I began reflecting on the difference between Hitchcock and this new incarnation of Sherlock Holmes. The mysteries in the TV series are fairly simple to figure out, not because we're clever or anything, but rather because of the old "Chekhov's Gun" principal of writing. If you mention the gun in your story, the gun gets used. If someone says in Sherlock, "Look at the clouds," you know that the clouds are part of the solution to the mystery. Hitchcock, by contrast, uses what he calls a "McGuffin." If Hitchcock's characters say, "Look at the clouds," that person may simply be pointing to the clouds. Whereas the TV series gives you only the information that you need, Hitchcock gives you too much information and expects you to filter things out.
Now, I'm watching What's the Matter with Kansas, a documentary that tries to figure out why Kansans vote against their basic needs. As I watch the documentary, I am trying to prevent myself from throwing things at the TV. I just about lost it when one of the kids was discussing Hybrid vehicle technology, and said, "I don't think drilling in ANWR would be a problem." A part of me wants to believe that Conservatives are actually cynical people who simply pretend to believe stupid things in order to maneuver to a place of power and influence. While this may be the case for Koch brothers and others like them, it would appear that many of these people actually do believe in everything they claim to believe. Incredulous!
I'd love to forget Kansas and regard it as a flyover state that everyone says it is--a hopeless lost cause. Yet, as the documentary reminds us (and as my research reveals), Kansas (and much of the midwest) was once a hotbed for progressive political causes. The Wizard of Oz, for instance, is supposed to be a thinly-veiled populist tale. Moreover, rural regions have always been places where progressive movements seem to get their start. Populist movements, which included agitation against the gold standard, meat packing reform, agricultural pricing reform, began in the Midwest. Abroad, peasant movements in Denmark led to the destabilization of the aristocracy and the rise of democratic socialism. In Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas (champion of universal health care) got his start. On the far left of things, Chinese and Vietnamese peasants led the Red revolutions in their respective nations. And the list goes on...
Rural movements are powerful things. And, I imagine there is potential for change within Kansas and places like it. However, sitting and listening to people on the documentary say things like "my college sex ed course was just a pornography class" or "let's go to the Creation Museum" makes me want to write them all off as a lost cause.
Still, an interesting documentary. I bet the book is better, though.
Anyway, there is nothing to do but wait for Season 3, I suppose. It was a pretty fair adaption of The Final Problem, the episode in which Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was getting sick and tired of Holmes and simply wanted to kill him off, but his fans wouldn't let him. So, how did Holmes get out of this one, we're supposed to wonder? My guess is that it had something to do with his meeting with the chemist woman who has a crush on him. Something improbable and scientific was involved. And, of course, if the series holds true to the book, Mycroft was in on it the whole time.
I wonder whether they'll resurrect Moriarty? In the book, that would have been the final curtain for him, but I imagine the TV series might feel compelled to bring him back as a token to his fans.
As I was watching the series, I began reflecting on the difference between Hitchcock and this new incarnation of Sherlock Holmes. The mysteries in the TV series are fairly simple to figure out, not because we're clever or anything, but rather because of the old "Chekhov's Gun" principal of writing. If you mention the gun in your story, the gun gets used. If someone says in Sherlock, "Look at the clouds," you know that the clouds are part of the solution to the mystery. Hitchcock, by contrast, uses what he calls a "McGuffin." If Hitchcock's characters say, "Look at the clouds," that person may simply be pointing to the clouds. Whereas the TV series gives you only the information that you need, Hitchcock gives you too much information and expects you to filter things out.
Now, I'm watching What's the Matter with Kansas, a documentary that tries to figure out why Kansans vote against their basic needs. As I watch the documentary, I am trying to prevent myself from throwing things at the TV. I just about lost it when one of the kids was discussing Hybrid vehicle technology, and said, "I don't think drilling in ANWR would be a problem." A part of me wants to believe that Conservatives are actually cynical people who simply pretend to believe stupid things in order to maneuver to a place of power and influence. While this may be the case for Koch brothers and others like them, it would appear that many of these people actually do believe in everything they claim to believe. Incredulous!
I'd love to forget Kansas and regard it as a flyover state that everyone says it is--a hopeless lost cause. Yet, as the documentary reminds us (and as my research reveals), Kansas (and much of the midwest) was once a hotbed for progressive political causes. The Wizard of Oz, for instance, is supposed to be a thinly-veiled populist tale. Moreover, rural regions have always been places where progressive movements seem to get their start. Populist movements, which included agitation against the gold standard, meat packing reform, agricultural pricing reform, began in the Midwest. Abroad, peasant movements in Denmark led to the destabilization of the aristocracy and the rise of democratic socialism. In Saskatchewan, Tommy Douglas (champion of universal health care) got his start. On the far left of things, Chinese and Vietnamese peasants led the Red revolutions in their respective nations. And the list goes on...
Rural movements are powerful things. And, I imagine there is potential for change within Kansas and places like it. However, sitting and listening to people on the documentary say things like "my college sex ed course was just a pornography class" or "let's go to the Creation Museum" makes me want to write them all off as a lost cause.
Still, an interesting documentary. I bet the book is better, though.