A Sherlock Rant
The real strength of BBC’s Sherlock is not, in my opinion, in either Sherlock or Moriarty but in their other main characters. The John Watson and Mycroft Holmes in that series are my favorite in any version of Sherlock Holmes I’ve seen (and I’ve seen most) or, for that matter, even the books! I think Mrs. Hudson and Lestrade are excellently cast, written, and played. I even think the much-debated Irene Adler was a fitting villain for Sherlock: she was smart, she had chutzpah, and I really did believe that here was a person capable of outwitting Sherlock.
And then we come to the characters of Sherlock Holmes and James Moriarty. Although Sherlock is not my favorite, version, I am much fonder of the young Sherlock than old, bitter Sherlock. I also very much like the version played by Ronald Howard - young, fresh, energetic, and capable of making mistakes. But my all-time favorite version of Sherlock Holmes is . . . Basil of Baker Street from the Great Mouse Detective. Perhaps fittingly, Ratigan is also my favorite Moriarty by far. The two play wonderfully off each other. Both are brilliant and selfish, but each has taken a different path in life. They are two heads of the same coin - which is precisely what BBC’s Sherlock and Moriarty are aiming for. The difference is, I think the BBC version fails. Oh, Sherlock is credible enough. He doesn’t have the light of genius in his eyes, (he really doesn’t strike me as bright as Basil of Baker Street) but his delivery is superb, his physicality spot on, and his deductions believable.
But Moriarty . . . how can I express my utter disappointment the first time I watched The Great Game and he walked into the room?
The thing is . . . the thing is this: I don’t believe him. Moriarty is supposed to be this powerful, genius, criminal mastermind, but whenever the character is onscreen, I simply don’t believe he’s capable of doing anything he’s supposed to have done. He’s supposed to be powerful but he can’t help but brag his suit is designer. He has no aura of power. He has no presence. The reason Mycroft made such a good red herring in A Study in Pink is that he actually did have the aura of power. I mean, he called himself a minor government official. No minor government official would actually call himself that. And he wears these expensive suits, yet he would never brag about them; he wouldn’t even think to; they’re just part of him. Without even trying to, when he’s not even trying to be particularly intimidating, he convinces John (and, I admit, me) that he is an evil criminal mastermind. I totally, utterly, believed it. And part of the reason I believed it was that he didn’t tell me. He didn’t have to.
And then we have Moriarty. Moriarty is wearing a designer suit and yet it doesn’t seem to fit him properly. He has excellent snake-like head undulation and yet speaks in a high, effeminate voice. The one time I ever believed him was in Scandal when he texted Mycroft Holmes . . . yet that was ruined by, at the beginning, saying “I will skin you” in the most unthreatening, unconvincing way ever into his mobile phone. In the finale of season 2, when Moriarty breaks in to get the crown jewels in a scene reminiscent of V for Vendetta, my primary response was embarrassment for how pathetic he was. (I believed it when Ratigan had a robotic version of Queen Victoria made to name him ruler -- and that's highly ridiculous. Yet I totally believed he'd do it (Vincent Price = perfect). I mean, seriously. The only thing I ever believed Moriarty doing was send a text message to Mycroft -- and that of information he hadn't even gotten himself, but only through Irene Adler!)
I know Moriarty is supposed to be deceptive and put on masks and such . . . but it shouldn’t be to the point where it breaks the credulity of the audience - breaks the entirely out of the scene. If I, in the tense, climatic scene of The Great Game, stop and think, What? That’s Moriarty? No, it can’t be! I don’t believe it! You’re kidding me! THAT? That’s supposed to be Sherlock Holmes’s great nemesis? Ugh, then there’s something wrong. I mean, I spent the entire end of that episode just thinking about how stupid Moriarty was.
Here’s the thing: I was willing to believe that Irene Adler was capable of doing what the writer’s said she did. The character they presented would totally do things like that. But Moriarty didn’t strike me as particularly intelligent or ruthless or creative. He struck me as pathetic and embarrassing, right up until the end. (This, by the way, is what made me absolutely furious about Moriarty being behind Irene Adler: it totally undercut her credibility as a villain. She had no need to rely on Moriarty . . . which is probably why in the books she beat Sherlock and in this she didn’t. ;) Oh, well)
Oh, and by the way? I saw Reichenbach once when it first came out and, although I own it on DVD, still haven’t managed to re-watch it. Even thinking about it, I am utterly appalled at a) how incredibly, unbelievably out of character and contrived Mycroft Holmes was and b) my general need for suspension of disbelief. One shouldn’t have to suspend disbelief, not if the writers work logically within their universe. Argh!
I did, however, like the first two episodes of season two. I thought the first episode had extremely strong and excellent characterizations and character relationships and the second episode had an excellent mystery.
Why are there so few actual mysteries/ case stories in this series? Why do they have to have the same idiotic method of continuity arches as in Doctor Who? Randomly jamming in two minutes of ill-fitting pointless repetitive does not continuity make!