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

[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]

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.

He's dead.

But I agree - an appearance by Harry, would be awfully cool.

[venta]

I'm also not familiar enough with the Holmes canon to really have much of a clue about historical subtexts, but actually read all the "but that's fine" comments as being realistic characterisation. A huge number of people do have the impulse to explain that "it's fine" rather than just letting it pass (because obviously it's fine, and why would I have to state it?)

I could easily imagine two blokes who, not knowing each other, had just agreed to share a flat having exactly the conversation Holmes and Watson had in the café, complete with rather awkward and overdone "it's fine"-ness.

Edit: Sorry if this sounds like I think your view is wrong, it wasn't meant to read like that at all but I'm worried it does!

(Also edited about a million times for random spelling errors, crimes against grammar, &c)

[innerbrat]

For reasons utterly unrelated to you or Penny, I'm taking everything the wrong way today anyway! So as a pre-emptive disclaimer, I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong either.

(How British that is)

Anyhoo. Just because it's good characterisation doesn't mean I want to see it all over my telly? I suppose it depends on whether you find that kind of awkwardness funny? I don't, because that awkwardness it rooted in the fact that it's not fine, really.

...I'm still watching it next week.

[venta]

If it carries on into the next episode, I'll come and join you on the Not Impressed bench - even I'd agree it was too much at that point!

[innerbrat]

Deal!

[strange_complex]

(How British that is)

*hugs you both for your genteel debating styles*