i got really distracted in places. unfortunately.
Apparently I'm not done talking about Sherlock yet, at least for today. This was inspired by magnetic_pole's thoughts on TRF and is mostly me thinking out loud, as it were.
( the theology of a sherlockian fall )
( the theology of a sherlockian fall )
First, I definitely agree about Lestrade. He was under pressure from both ends, his own people and the super, and as you said, it's not like we were supposed to doubt Sherlock in any real way; we knew from the beginning of that bit that this was just another piece of Sherlock's life breaking apart, that it was suspicion born of distrust and jealousy, easy for Moriarty to fan the flames of without remorse. In fact, upon reflection, I'm surprised how little evidence they had to present to get a warrant; everything seemed based on the superintendent's embarrassment and Donovan and Anderson's collusion. I mean, does Sherlock even wear the shoe size in question? Did he have an alibi? What about forensic evidence? In England, can you arrest people on "suspicion" as Lestrade said? Maybe so. I'm not sure they'd even have probable cause for a search warrant much less an arrest warrant here in the states.
As for a graceful Sherlock, I agree there, too, and it's too bad. I was thinking about Cumberbatch's performance, which was far more subtle than the script called for; I have a hunch he would gladly play many layers for Sherlock, but the writers seem to see only a few. This Sherlock has potential, but as long as he's a stand-in for the writers' own cleverness, I'm not sure he'll get very far. (I am biased in that I am no longer Moffat's biggest fan; I think Gatiss could come through, but might be restrained, either for creative or production purposes. I also thought it telling that Mofatt did not write this episode; he was too busy with Irene Adler, I suppose. Ugh. I do wish Gatiss had written this one instead of Baskerville, however, considering he did show us some depth to Sherlock and Moriarty in The Great Game.)
I wish they had done more with the opportunity they had in "Sinnerman," but it was not to be. If only they had played with the fact that they had, in fact, situated Sherlock as the sinner, at least accidentally.
Martin Freeman, though. Talk about the acting fleshing out a character. I love loyal characters (see: Sirius Black) but he managed to make John's loyalty a virtue instead of pathetic, which I think it had the potential to be in a lesser actor. And his FACE. From the point point he realized he was sent on a wild goose chase to Mrs. Hudson on, he was outstanding. They kept that tight close-up on him as he was hit by the bike trying to get to Sherlock's body, and that was . . . well, being able to convey the level of pain there was really masterful.
Yes, link away! In fact, I will unlock the post to make it easier. :)
Reply
Leave a comment