Sherlock: A Study in Pink

[strange_complex]

This production from Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss has been well-hyped, which always makes me wary. But it does seem to have got off to a good start this evening. Here are some of the things I particularly liked about it:

• The fact that the first time we see Sherlock's face, it's viewed upside-down and from within a body-bag. A lovely statement of

Comments

[parrot_knight]

The use of text was indeed seamless, and so successful that I forgot to point it out.

I'm not too familiar with the Granada series, though I've seen fragments of it on ITV3 in recent years, and so haven't caught Charles Gray's Mycroft.

I'd imagined that 221B would be a more modern flat to acknowledge that that side of Baker Street is very 1960s, as I recall, but then that would have been channelling Adam Adamant rather than earlier interpretations of Holmes...

[strange_complex]

I think the Granada series is worth watching systematically - and Charles Gray's Mycroft is a particular strength.

[innerbrat]

You liked the queer references? I felt that if I was treated to another dose of 'not that there's anything wrong with that kind of thing' I'd've left the room. Even Harriet Watson was the punchline to a joke.

[strange_complex]

I think they worked for me mainly as a commentary on the century plus of Holmes stories which haven't explicitly acknowledged the queer subtext between Holmes and Watson at all. The way last night's show handled it functioned for me as a sort of tongue-in-cheek joke at the expense of the many, many previous productions which haven't recognised or acknowledged it at all. (Again, though, I should stress that I haven't seen the recent film, so I've quite probably missed out on an important stage in the evolution of the Holmes / Watson relationship there

[innerbrat]

Fair enough on all of this.

(I didn't mind Harry at all at the time, although I hope we meet her or Clara and she's not just an invisible lesbian character.)

I'm not a Holmes fan at all, so I have this in an utterly different context from you, which is cool. In fact, the only thing I've really seen is the recent movie, which portrayed the relationship as a possesive, highly dependent (at least in one direction, if not codependent) one; the source of debilitating jealousy from Holmes in regards to Mary, but clearly rooted in deep love, regardless of whether it's platonic or not.

But because I came to this with no context, I expect a mystery show set in modern day London, and all the 'not that there's any wrong with that' comments just read to me like explicitly saying "We're not homophobic here at Broadcasting House, but slashers are just MISTAKEN, OK?"

I guess I prefer subtext to remain subtext and platonic relationships to speak for themselves and that my TV didn't add to that kind of rhetoric.

Otherwise, I REALLY REALLY liked

[strange_complex]

Oh yes, I definitely hope we get to meet Harry and / or Clara too. Though I don't have big hopes about it, as I don't remember Watson's brother playing much of a role in the original stories.

And it's interesting that you read the comments made in last night's episode as implying that slashers were mistaken, as I didn't take that from it at all. Obviously both Holmes and Watson were protesting that they weren't attracted to one another in last night's episode - but then again, they had only just met and there is plenty of time for it to develop. At least, it may well do so on Watson's side, but I think Holmes will always remain fairly asexual - which is much the same dynamic as can be teased out of the subtext in the Granada series.

[katsmeat]

It is clever. The numerous lifts from the originals are seamlessly worked in - deducing Watson's sister was a careless drunk from the scratches around the phone's charging point was came from the scene in The Sign of the Four where Holmes makes the deduction from scratches around the keyhole of Watson's brother's watch.

I've a notion that icons with a picture of Benedict Cumberbatch, and "What is it like to live in your tiny little minds?" are being made as I type this.

[strange_complex]

Oh yes, I am certain that there will be many, many icons! (As for me, though, I'm all out of Holmes icons, and must resort to Poirot now). Incidentally, that particular line struck me as very Marvin the Paranoid Android-esque, so there is cross-over potential there, too.

And I hadn't remembered that about The Sign of the Four, though I'm pretty sure I've at least seen the Granada adaptation of it at some point. Well spotted you, and indeed - well adapted them!

[goddessofchaos]

I watched it too - quite unusual for me these days as I rarely watch TV series (just documentaries and sports), but I'm a fan of the original books so thought I would take a look. I quite enjoyed it and agree with a lot of what you've said here. I liked the look of it the way the text and graphics were incorporated, and quite liked the way the characters were done and some of the dialogue

[strange_complex]

Glad you enjoyed it too, though I agree about the plot. Let's hope that improves over the next two episodes.

I know what you mean about the scene with Mycroft, but I guess that's part of how that character has always worked. I think he is supposed to be more interested in showing off about how clever he is, whereas Sherlock has enough application to actually solve real crimes. But yes - too much of that could get tiresome.