I completely sympathize with the obsession--I'm also addicted to "A Scandal": the details of plot and characterization are so deep and plentiful.....I basically just wallow in them. "Hounds," I'll be honest--not so much, although I do like Holmes' awkward and sincere attempt to apologize to Watson.
I like the mislead of "We have to be more careful"--at least, that's how I see it....It sounds as if Watson means the perception that he and Holmes are gay, since Watson was just reading his tabloid epithets of "bachelor" and "confirmed bachelor." However, what he then talks about to Holmes is how the press will turn--that's what he really meant. He was seeing all the signs, in the tabloid article, of the slanted journalism, with its innuendoes and allusions that border on slander/libel....So, the dialogue seems to be going in one direction, and then it suddenly veers into something else entirely.
Moffat likes that style (and so do I, I confess)--he did it in the DW dialogue, too: when Amy asks Eleven if River is his wife, in DW5, and he answers, "Yes....I am Mr. Grumpyface today"; or, in "A Good Man....": "Have you ever had children?" "No, no--it's my hair."
Oh yes, I love how they’re trying to mislead the viewers into little biased conclusions. :) Moffat et al seem to be experts in that. And I like the idea that not only the mystery plots seem to be full of interesting details to observe, but also the characterization and the dialogue.
I think “Hound” was interesting but not one of the best episodes, and frankly I think neither was the original story, now that I’ve read it. Maybe it’s the over-dramatization of the Hound legend and its “scary” surroundings that rub me the wrong way, together with the fact that I’m a bit tired of scientists (not least biologists :P) being shown as ruthless and even criminal people. I’m grateful that Moffat let Holmes be present, though, and not as in Doyle’s original, coming around at the end of the story.
I liked the part where Sherlock claims he has no friends and then actually understands that he has hurt John. But even as he tries to apologize, he just can’t help making the insult worse… :P And still I get the feeling that Holmes is actually learning to relate to people, thanks to Watson; all Watson’s attempts to “educate” him socially aren’t totally wasted, as it seems (and it’s highly entertaining).
I had never read any Holmes books before, but since I’ve taken to do it, my impression this far is that in some cases I actually like Moffat/Gatiss's version even better than Doyle’s. Moffat’s Holmes is a work in progress; his flaws and personal development makes him more alive to me than the book version, where the character seems next to perfect.
Oh, happy day! The regular LJ notification system seems to be working again. :)
I love the opriginal Holmes stories: I devoured them as soon as I discovered them, as a kid....I hoarded my money and instantly bought another book as soon as I had the spending money gathered, and then read the new book all at once.
Favorite character in literature? Sherlock Holmes. #1 for about 40 years, now.
But....yeah. I concur: I think I actually like the Moffat/Gatiss version. I'm trying to figure out why, and I am leaning toward the idea that, to me, M/G have captured the fun, tone and spirit of the originals; I love all the allusions and inside jokes, I love the plots and performances....but, overall, I just think that M/G's work SOUNDS like Doyle's. It's authentic. They just get it--from respect for what Doyle wrote to seeing the modern equivalents. In addition, because they are not trying to adapt the stories word-for-word (as for instance, the Jeremy Brett series did), their changes and modifications only serve to emphasize and illuminate aspects of the originals. For me, what M/G choose in those regards just so happen to correspond exactly with what I happen to have always loved about the original stories and characters.
And....I also agree with you about Watson's social education project. What I am enjoying about this current interpretation is the exploration of the Watson/Holmes relationship--looking back, I think the key is in the first episode, when Holmes explains how he knew about Watson's phone....Watson reacts with awe and admiration; Holmes is taken aback: "That's not what people usually say," he murmurs; Watson asks, of course, what the usual reaction is, and Holmes reveals, "'Piss off.'" I think it all starts right there, with Holmes' receiving genuine approval from someone.....
Yes, I think so too. Watson is one of the few people who approves of Sherlock, and the latter is not used to that. Holmes is no hermit really, the problem is that people don’t appreciate him because he doesn’t quite know how to behave among them (and neither is he perhaps very interested in socializing with most of them; he doesn’t have much patience with stupidity, and since most people have considerably less brains than he has… :P ). Holmes just doesn’t seem to “get” WHY people get annoyed or hurt when he patronizes them and blurts out deductions in public referring to their poor looks or mental capacity.
And yet it seems from his subtle facial expressions that he does get a bit hurt himself when Mycroft mocks him for his lack of friends or sexual experience or whatever. Passion and sentiments aren’t lacking - empathy seems to be his problem; it doesn’t come automatically to him in social contexts, and neither does he consider love or compassion - and certainly not tact - as something useful. Which leads him into many embarrassing situations that I think are some of the most entertaining points of Moffat’s show. And I think you’re right that Moffat’s version is actually emphasizing the original stories, where these tendencies do exist in Holmes, but perhaps not so blatantly as in this modern show.
I think it’s hilarious, for example, in RF when Sherlock says to Molly: ”Molly, please don’t feel the need to make conversation - it’s really not your area!”. While this sounds awfully rude, he could just as well be addressing himself. Another funny dialogue between Sherlock and Molly is in “Scandal” when Molly says: “Well, we all do silly things…” and Sherlock answers “THEY do, don’t THEY?” (and then he fails - AGAIN - to break Irene’s cell phone code. What a clown! :) ). I haven’t quite forgiven Moffat yet for having Holmes outwit Adler in the end, which I found non-canonical bordering on obnoxious. But if he instead makes Molly Hooper outwit this man, I certainly will forgive him. :P
Watson is a somewhat different story; for one he doesn’t just take sh*t from Sherlock; he retorts, telling him exactly how he feels about his manners, but then still stays with him, he still hangs around - except for that scene in “Hounds” where Watson has had enough and just walks out on Sherlock. And Sherlock does get the message this time… I can’t help thinking Sherlock is actually learning; he’s eventually getting somewhere even in the relationship area. In Series 2, he has already apologized twice to people who care for him, and ultimately he even faked his death to save them. And unlike Mycroft, he’s actually wavering in his arrogant beliefs: “Do you ever wonder if there’s something wrong with us?”.
Much more could be said about Canon Sherlock also, but this post is getting a bit lengthy… ;)
I didn't have much (any) issue with Holmes' outmauevering Adler in "Scandal"--since, in the original story, Adler's 'win' basically comes because she gets married and her husband takes her away..........................
There is something about the M/G Holmes: he's rather isolated, and some of it seems to be by choice--because other people frustrate and annoy him with their limitations. On the other hand, to me there seem to be hints that there's more to it--that there's a sense of a withdrawal and an attempt to protect himself.
Holmes says harsh things, but he's not always totally oblivious to others' feelings. Sometimes, the harshness is intended to wound, quite deliberately (as with Anderson or Donovan, both of whom are quite unkind toward Holmes, too); sometimes Holmes is genuinely oblivious, because his mind is miles away from what he's actually saying and to whom (his unforgiving estimation of the driver in "Scandal"). But there are times when other emotions seem to come into play.
He lashes out at Watson when he's afraid....and immediately wants to atone for that, when the effects of the drug have passed. In the Christmas scene, he seems on edge, and he takes it out on Molly; when she makes him see how hurt she is, he displays heartfelt remorse, and his manner is exceptionally gentle--even warm. That's something he also evidences when the CIA guys attack Mrs. Hudson....and that scene ends with his hug of Mrs. H, in a manner that underscores a mother/son type of relationship.
Watson seems to be training Holmes in social relationships--but doing so by drawing out what is within Holmes: something that appears to have been carefully tucked away and guarded over the years.
As I took it, Canon Adler was the only person who had ultimately outwitted Sherlock Holmes, and not because she got married, but because she saw through his little plot to get hands on her photos and then made sure he never did. Her escape could have been by any means (she was a trained actress, after all); the thing is to me that she got aware that she was being fooled by Holmes and took precautions to stop the game. And the story ends with Watson commenting that Holmes, after this little episode, did shut up about women’s wit.
I’m not sorry for Moffat’s Adler character; I think she deserved what she got from Holmes, seeing as she had used him and then hurt not just his intellectual pride (which I don’t mourn :P), but also his feelings rather cruelly. As the plot was set up, they were sort of “even” in the end. I just would have felt happier with the ending if it had contained basically the same result as the original; it would be healthy for him if someone at least once managed to outwit Holmes, and why not the Canon version? I admit I would prefer someone like Molly doing it, though.
As for the Christmas scene, I think it was not only that Molly got hurt that made Sherlock apologize. He had hurt her before, but never apologized. But this time I think for once he really got aware of himself coming across as a complete moron AND a jerk. Everyone in that room, except for the Great Detective, had probably immediately deduced that the “boyfriend” Molly had dressed up for and was intending to give a Christmas present was HIM. If anything was uncalled for, it was his "brilliant" analysis on the subject. (I even suspect he might have done it out of a subconscious bit of jealousy towards Molly's supposed new lover).
I think Holmes has been taking Molly for granted, supposing she's just a silly girl who has a crush on any fellow that shows up. He just couldn’t fathom that someone might care about HIM for real, that this is the reason for her always being there for him. Until RF, when she gives evidence that she can indeed “read” him and his sadness, and then he tells her that she does count to him and sincerely seeks her help. I do agree about Watson drawing out what’s within Holmes, and basically I believe Molly is beginning to do the same thing.
I haven't quite gotten to re-read "A Scandal in Bohemia" yet (I've done "A Study in Scralet" and am almost done with "The Sign of Four")....I did skim it, but I'm relying mostly on my reaction to it when I was a kid--and I wasn't quite convinced that Adler was all that clever. Mostly lucky, and well timed. It always bothered me that she was labeled the outstanding woman, and yet she hadn't really struck me as doing anything exceptional.
Therefore, I enjoy Moffat's take on the character, because she seems more genuinely independent than the original. Although I do wonder how much of her actions was determined by Moriarity--or by running scared of him.
At Christmas, Holmes seems to be in a very irritable mood. He plays the violin for Mrs. H--but he's really quite rude to everyone else in the room, and his nastiness peaks with Molly. I love that she takes him down--it's very similar to Watson's reaction to "I don't have friends" and Holmes' attempt to apologize--"Stick to ice."
The parallel between Molly and Watson is nicely emphasized in "The Reichenbach Fall": the episode begins with Watson's prodding for Holmes to mind (or learn) his manners and say 'thank you'--in the lab, Holmes actually calls Molly "John" and she also reminds him to say 'Thank you' to her.
I get the feeling that Moffat’s characters - including ms Adler - are generally even more “alive” than Doyle’s. They don’t just have interesting stories to tell, they are also very multi-faceted and interesting themselves. And perhaps by exaggerating them a bit compared to the originals, while still leaving their basic traits intact, Moffat & Gatiss manage to make them quite a lot funnier. They’re not caricatures, though; they still come across as people who could actually exist. They’re reasonably believable. But they do make me laugh a lot, or at least snigger…
For example I haven’t gotten to Doyle’s Moriarty yet, but I do think the modern Moriarty is creepy and horrible in a rather funny way that it would surprise me if Doyle’s stories could fully conjure. Scott is superb in his depiction of the deranged Jim, suddenly popping up as “ordinary people”, like one of the usually invisible IT-guys at Molly’s hospital, or acting as an actor who is terrified of his employer. Moriarty is an evil shadow that lies behind most bad things and never leaves you in peace. He’s your average guy next door, and still, at a closer look, he’s got suspect intense facial expressions, maniacal manners, and he’s literally far too bored to cope with living a “normal” life…
The last two traits could perhaps be attributed to Holmes as well, but there are - thankfully - some great big differences between them. One is, I believe, that Holmes does indeed have strong feelings for other people, even if he’s very reluctant to permit himself to show them (and probably even to recognize them to himself). Holmes also, unlike Moriarty, does care about people's lives. Another difference is that Sherlock is mostly blatantly honest; he usually doesn’t try to deceive people with faked manners. And when he does disguise himself, it’s mostly quite obvious what he’s trying to do. Like for example when he enters Adler’s house disguised as a vicar… :)
But Moriarty seems like a naughty little boy, someone who never grew up or matured, and like a small child he is completely self-centered and absorbed by his own needs. The delighted glimpse in his eyes when he for a second glances at Holmes in RF, demonstrating how he has managed to fool the journalist with a faked personality, is nothing less than excellent acting from Scott.
Another example is Donovan and Anderson; they seem to be the single most stupid characters in the series, and at least Donovan also manages to be really mean. Holmes is merciless with them, but he seems to have good reason to actually treat them that way. Which, all in all, makes their interactions quite hilarious, I think.
Christmas in “Scandal”, again: I love that scene. It’s true that Sherlock is rude to everyone, but then again, he usually is. And his tirade against Molly seems even so a bit over the top to me. At first he most deliberately ignores her, rolling his eyes, as soon as she enters their little Christmas reception, dressed as if it were a full New Year’s party. Lestrade goes “wow!” at her dress, but Sherlock looks at the computer, until the moment he comes up with his full analysis of her supposed intentions to see someone, topping it with a horrible comment about her mouth and breasts which should have earned him a face slap.
Holmes’ apology comes after realizing that HE was the actual subject of Molly’s attentions. One might wonder why Sherlock is always so concerned about Molly’s supposed relationships with other men that he bothers to make lengthy comments about them? In RF he even tells her that she shouldn’t attempt to have any relationships, while at the same time “inviting” her to have “lunch” with him at the lab. He needs to enter the lab, of course, but why insist to have her around as well? He also starts to distractedly call her "John" (whom we do know he cares very much for) and by the end of the RF episode, Holmes is no longer claiming that he needs Molly's "help" - this time he does admit that he needs HER.
By the way, does Molly Hooper exist in the original Holmes stories? I haven’t spotted her this far - could she be a pure invention of Moffat’s?
I can't recall anyone similar to Molly Hooper in the original stories (and, of course--the character would not have been a woman......): I think she's wholly a Moffat/Gatiss creation. She serves the purpose of explaining how/why Holmes can have access to a fully equipped lab, all the time--but I also love how she becomes part of the overall story arc of "training" Holmes.
Holmes and Moriarity have plenty of lines about how they're like each other....but they really aren't. It goes back to the Christ imagery, I think: Holmes is a savior, perhaps something of an avenging angel. He enjoys the "game" of solving crimes; the fact that he solves them does place him on the side of right. His acts of violence are performed in defense of those he loves: the CIA guy gets it twice in "Scandal"--once for ordering the shooting of Watson and once for abusing Mrs. Hudson.
Andrew Scott is a marvel as Moriarity: he's utterly fascinating--and frightening. He's able to make his eyes go flat; he captures the 'reptilian' sense that Doyle described Moriarity as having. His loopiness is funny--even as it's scary; it's not Holmes' eccentricities, but a genuine disassociation from other people and normality. Moriarity is completely without feeling, without any sense of another's humanity; his contempt for everyone else is why he orchestrates crimes--it's for his entertainment, and he wants to destroy, rather than set things right as Holmes does.
Yeah, Holmes is a savior indeed, and while he doesn’t seem to care much about dead people, he does care about the living, doing his uttermost to keep them alive. “Avenging angel” might be a way to put it. I was going to say that his conversation with Moriarty on the rooftop is interesting, because Holmes claims that while he may be “on the side of the angels”, he’s not one of them. And figuratively speaking, he is indeed on the side of the angels, the side of the good. But he can’t be an angel, because there are no angels; there are only humans, most of them “ordinary” and some of them extraordinary perhaps - but still humans. Holmes does have flaws, but it’s engaging to see how he progresses in handling them, just as anyone can try to do. As opposed to Moriarty, who believes he’s Godly perfect and invincible - so much in fact, that he chooses death before losing.
While I think Doyle often describes Holmes’ cold, rational and sentiment-free reasoning as a great advantage, something admirable, I believe Moffat/Gatiss are more multi-facetted. Holmes is awesome in many ways and has a brilliant capacity for deduction, yes. But the modern version goes to show also the other side of the coin: what a handicap it can be to have a not-so-high level of social IQ and empathy.
The modern Holmes needs to learn quite a few things about showing care for people and appreciating friends. Sherlock and Mycroft have probably been raised in an environment without much love. But I do believe at least Sherlock’s a work in progress. I think the whole of Series 2 has shown Sherlock being confronted with different strong emotions. Emotions that distract him from his intellectual tasks, but also that he needs to come to terms with. In “Scandal” I believe it’s desire and longing. In “Hounds” it’s fear and a sense of doubt in himself. In Reichenbach Falls, finally, it’s pain and love.
The lighting is interesting, as Holmes delivers the "angels" speech on the rooftop: even as he's saying he isn't one of the angels, he's haloed. The camera shoots upward; the lighting bleaches Cumberbatch's face until his eyes are like lasers.....I kind of feel as if they may as well have handed him a flaming sword and finish off the visual. :D
The lack of sentimentality helps Holmes when he has to gather evidence: there's nothing else he can do for the dead person, except find justice for him/her. He doesn't allow himself to be distracted by any emotion about the corpse...as he points out to Watson, sounding rather cold, it won't do the person any good. As with much of what Holmes says--it does sound cold, but it's also relentlessly logical, and his purpose, in the end, is actually to achieve good.
The M/G Sherlock Holmes is a very guarded, very wary person--and I agree that season 2 appears to be about, in large part, Holmes letting down some of that guard.
Yes, I noticed the halo too. In that scene Sherlock looks a bit like I’d have imagined the archangel Michael, in his battle against Satan (Moriarty?). Michael, who is often depicted with a sword, is mentioned in the Qur'an as well, by the way, which would fit with the image of Holmes in ”Scandal” where he appears dressed as an arab with a sable, saving Irene from death. Perhaps he’s supposed to symbolically save her soul as well, since this seems to have been another of Michael’s tasks?
You’re right that this series seems full of shining religious imagery, which makes a nice contrast to Holmes’ rather cold and rational process of deduction. But I do believe his logical, analysing approach to the crime cases is the best for everyone involved - however cold and heartless as it may seem.
I guess Sherlock had planned to stage his death with Moriarty still alive, since he seemed genuinely shocked by the other’s sudden suicide. It would be interesting to know what happened with Moriarty’s body, though; how would people explain his death into Holmes’ supposed faking of crimes to gain attention? Why kill the “actor” when the “truth” was already out, and then jump? Makes rather little sense to me…
It’s going to be difficult to wait almost a year before knowing what actually happened with Holmes after he threw himself from the roof. Judging by the last scene of RF, he has not left town like he did for three years in the original story to travel around the world, he has apparently just been hanging around. My tin-foil-hat theory is that his hidey-hole will turn out to be Molly’s place. She didn’t seem to “count” among the 3 persons Moriarty had set up to kill as Sherlock’s only friends in the world, so staying with her perhaps wouldn’t mean a threat to any of the targeted victims.
Another neat, interesting visual is that, on the rooftop, the color is leached out so that everything is white and Cumberbatch's astonishing eyes dominate; the reverse is done when Holmes is dressed as an Arab: then, he's blacked out, yet, again, all that can be seen are those brilliant eyes. On the rooftop, the eyes are beyond cold--Holmes is frightening, enough so that even Moriarity realizes he's up against someone with immense power, who will do him harm. When Holmes is dressed all in black, his eyes sparkle--there's no mistaking his glee at surprising Adler with her rescue.
And, by the way....Holmes, in the closeups then, looks quite feminine: he ends up looking as if he's wearing an even stricter form of abaya and hijab than Adler is. And the focus becomes those lovely eyes. To me, it just added a whole other layer to the gender-bending of the whole episode, what with not-gay Watson's love for Holmes, and yes-gay Adler's love for Holmes, and the 'nobody's sure about him' Holmes' fierce protectiveness of both Watson and Adler.
I wonder if the "moment of privacy" was supposed to be the moment when Holmes committed his fake suicide, except he suddenly saw a way out. Then, his confronting Moriarity with this fact resulted in Moriarity's unexpected suicide, and Holmes was back to having to fake his own death.....
I may implode, having to wait for more information--I mean....they're not even close to filming. Aaarrggghh!!!! At least DW starts next week, and I can live off those spoilers. ;)
Yes, yes and yes. To all of it. I certainly believe Holme’s suicide was planned at the “moment of privacy”. Because this is hardly something that Sherlock would say just for his own sake, for the same reason he wouldn’t beg for mercy. But Moriarty is a bit like Voldemort: too arrogant to understand what really makes people tick.
And Holmes’ brain is always working, even in a moment of stress. So yes, he probably suddenly got to the conclusion that Moriarty could call the whole thing off, but he hadn’t foreseen the psychopath’s suicide. Which forced him to carry on with his dangerous plan anyway. And Holmes really seems to suffer from having to do it; when he lies to Watson it’s the first time we see him crying. The “sentiment distraction” works with him this time, though, since he’s supposed to appear upset anyway, but for other reasons.
Cumberbatch’s acting is wonderful, by the way. You can tell the difference between when he tries to “act”, admitting he’s a “fake” who invented Moriarty, and then when he tells John he researched HIM just to impress; his whole face contorts like a clown at first, but the tears later do seem genuinely felt.
*Tin-foil-deerstalker on*. My theory is that the paramedics were waiting below with a canvas or something for Holmes to jump into. His showing up ALONE at the border of the roof might have been the signal for them to get ready for the jump (maybe someone was also watching from the opposite building?). Moffat says they filmed a clue that no one seems to have noticed. When John is heading for the building, Sherlock convinces him to stop just the moment we can see a glimpse of a paramedic in the street below. This is a hospital, so it could just be a coincidence of course, but at that moment, John probably didn’t notice the paramedic. And from his original angle, which Holmes wants him to stand at, John can’t see the whole bottom of the hospital because a lower building covers it.
Then John's knocked out for a while, probably enough to allow the paramedics to cover Holmes’ face with blood and put him on the street. And then the paramedics stop Watson from taking Holmes’ pulse. (See how some details are repetitive in this series? This is not the first faking of a death, nor the first attempt at taking a pulse). I still can’t quite explain which body WE saw hitting the sidewalk, though. But at least the street seems clear when the body hits the sidewalk, so no one saw the details.
As for “Scandal” I was thinking the very same thing: Holmes appeared feminine in that clothing, putting emphasis on his stunning eyes. I would probably say “Wow!” even if I WERE gay… :)
I just can't see Holmes' asking for a "moment of privacy"...what for? Except to signal that he was ready to his crew on the ground. I'm sure Holmes' 'homeless network' was the group that gathered around....I also am one of the people who believes that the truck parked nearby was one of the aspects of the plan--my tinfoil is that he landed in the bed of the truck, and then jumped from there to the sidewalk; his helpers provided the blood and kept Watson at bay.
I don't think Holmes intended Watson to see him jump. He sent Watson away with the false emergency about Mrs. Hudson, but Watson returned too quickly. Therefore, Holmes had to talk to Watson and keep Watson out of the direct line of sight, as well as explain to Watson why he was committing suicide; I think Holmes' tears were genuine, as he knew what he was doing to Watson....and, by the end of season 2, Holmes has changed a great deal from what he was before "A Study in Pink." Well, not changed so much as having ~thawed~ ...as Watson says at Holmes' grave: "I was so alone....and I owe you so much."
I like the mislead of "We have to be more careful"--at least, that's how I see it....It sounds as if Watson means the perception that he and Holmes are gay, since Watson was just reading his tabloid epithets of "bachelor" and "confirmed bachelor." However, what he then talks about to Holmes is how the press will turn--that's what he really meant. He was seeing all the signs, in the tabloid article, of the slanted journalism, with its innuendoes and allusions that border on slander/libel....So, the dialogue seems to be going in one direction, and then it suddenly veers into something else entirely.
Moffat likes that style (and so do I, I confess)--he did it in the DW dialogue, too: when Amy asks Eleven if River is his wife, in DW5, and he answers, "Yes....I am Mr. Grumpyface today"; or, in "A Good Man....": "Have you ever had children?" "No, no--it's my hair."
Reply
I think “Hound” was interesting but not one of the best episodes, and frankly I think neither was the original story, now that I’ve read it. Maybe it’s the over-dramatization of the Hound legend and its “scary” surroundings that rub me the wrong way, together with the fact that I’m a bit tired of scientists (not least biologists :P) being shown as ruthless and even criminal people. I’m grateful that Moffat let Holmes be present, though, and not as in Doyle’s original, coming around at the end of the story.
I liked the part where Sherlock claims he has no friends and then actually understands that he has hurt John. But even as he tries to apologize, he just can’t help making the insult worse… :P And still I get the feeling that Holmes is actually learning to relate to people, thanks to Watson; all Watson’s attempts to “educate” him socially aren’t totally wasted, as it seems (and it’s highly entertaining).
I had never read any Holmes books before, but since I’ve taken to do it, my impression this far is that in some cases I actually like Moffat/Gatiss's version even better than Doyle’s. Moffat’s Holmes is a work in progress; his flaws and personal development makes him more alive to me than the book version, where the character seems next to perfect.
/Nyctalus
Reply
I love the opriginal Holmes stories: I devoured them as soon as I discovered them, as a kid....I hoarded my money and instantly bought another book as soon as I had the spending money gathered, and then read the new book all at once.
Favorite character in literature? Sherlock Holmes. #1 for about 40 years, now.
But....yeah. I concur: I think I actually like the Moffat/Gatiss version. I'm trying to figure out why, and I am leaning toward the idea that, to me, M/G have captured the fun, tone and spirit of the originals; I love all the allusions and inside jokes, I love the plots and performances....but, overall, I just think that M/G's work SOUNDS like Doyle's. It's authentic. They just get it--from respect for what Doyle wrote to seeing the modern equivalents. In addition, because they are not trying to adapt the stories word-for-word (as for instance, the Jeremy Brett series did), their changes and modifications only serve to emphasize and illuminate aspects of the originals. For me, what M/G choose in those regards just so happen to correspond exactly with what I happen to have always loved about the original stories and characters.
And....I also agree with you about Watson's social education project. What I am enjoying about this current interpretation is the exploration of the Watson/Holmes relationship--looking back, I think the key is in the first episode, when Holmes explains how he knew about Watson's phone....Watson reacts with awe and admiration; Holmes is taken aback: "That's not what people usually say," he murmurs; Watson asks, of course, what the usual reaction is, and Holmes reveals, "'Piss off.'" I think it all starts right there, with Holmes' receiving genuine approval from someone.....
Reply
And yet it seems from his subtle facial expressions that he does get a bit hurt himself when Mycroft mocks him for his lack of friends or sexual experience or whatever. Passion and sentiments aren’t lacking - empathy seems to be his problem; it doesn’t come automatically to him in social contexts, and neither does he consider love or compassion - and certainly not tact - as something useful. Which leads him into many embarrassing situations that I think are some of the most entertaining points of Moffat’s show. And I think you’re right that Moffat’s version is actually emphasizing the original stories, where these tendencies do exist in Holmes, but perhaps not so blatantly as in this modern show.
I think it’s hilarious, for example, in RF when Sherlock says to Molly: ”Molly, please don’t feel the need to make conversation - it’s really not your area!”. While this sounds awfully rude, he could just as well be addressing himself. Another funny dialogue between Sherlock and Molly is in “Scandal” when Molly says: “Well, we all do silly things…” and Sherlock answers “THEY do, don’t THEY?” (and then he fails - AGAIN - to break Irene’s cell phone code. What a clown! :) ). I haven’t quite forgiven Moffat yet for having Holmes outwit Adler in the end, which I found non-canonical bordering on obnoxious. But if he instead makes Molly Hooper outwit this man, I certainly will forgive him. :P
Watson is a somewhat different story; for one he doesn’t just take sh*t from Sherlock; he retorts, telling him exactly how he feels about his manners, but then still stays with him, he still hangs around - except for that scene in “Hounds” where Watson has had enough and just walks out on Sherlock. And Sherlock does get the message this time… I can’t help thinking Sherlock is actually learning; he’s eventually getting somewhere even in the relationship area. In Series 2, he has already apologized twice to people who care for him, and ultimately he even faked his death to save them. And unlike Mycroft, he’s actually wavering in his arrogant beliefs: “Do you ever wonder if there’s something wrong with us?”.
Much more could be said about Canon Sherlock also, but this post is getting a bit lengthy… ;)
/Nyctalus
Reply
There is something about the M/G Holmes: he's rather isolated, and some of it seems to be by choice--because other people frustrate and annoy him with their limitations. On the other hand, to me there seem to be hints that there's more to it--that there's a sense of a withdrawal and an attempt to protect himself.
Holmes says harsh things, but he's not always totally oblivious to others' feelings. Sometimes, the harshness is intended to wound, quite deliberately (as with Anderson or Donovan, both of whom are quite unkind toward Holmes, too); sometimes Holmes is genuinely oblivious, because his mind is miles away from what he's actually saying and to whom (his unforgiving estimation of the driver in "Scandal"). But there are times when other emotions seem to come into play.
He lashes out at Watson when he's afraid....and immediately wants to atone for that, when the effects of the drug have passed. In the Christmas scene, he seems on edge, and he takes it out on Molly; when she makes him see how hurt she is, he displays heartfelt remorse, and his manner is exceptionally gentle--even warm. That's something he also evidences when the CIA guys attack Mrs. Hudson....and that scene ends with his hug of Mrs. H, in a manner that underscores a mother/son type of relationship.
Watson seems to be training Holmes in social relationships--but doing so by drawing out what is within Holmes: something that appears to have been carefully tucked away and guarded over the years.
Reply
I’m not sorry for Moffat’s Adler character; I think she deserved what she got from Holmes, seeing as she had used him and then hurt not just his intellectual pride (which I don’t mourn :P), but also his feelings rather cruelly. As the plot was set up, they were sort of “even” in the end. I just would have felt happier with the ending if it had contained basically the same result as the original; it would be healthy for him if someone at least once managed to outwit Holmes, and why not the Canon version? I admit I would prefer someone like Molly doing it, though.
As for the Christmas scene, I think it was not only that Molly got hurt that made Sherlock apologize. He had hurt her before, but never apologized. But this time I think for once he really got aware of himself coming across as a complete moron AND a jerk. Everyone in that room, except for the Great Detective, had probably immediately deduced that the “boyfriend” Molly had dressed up for and was intending to give a Christmas present was HIM. If anything was uncalled for, it was his "brilliant" analysis on the subject. (I even suspect he might have done it out of a subconscious bit of jealousy towards Molly's supposed new lover).
I think Holmes has been taking Molly for granted, supposing she's just a silly girl who has a crush on any fellow that shows up. He just couldn’t fathom that someone might care about HIM for real, that this is the reason for her always being there for him. Until RF, when she gives evidence that she can indeed “read” him and his sadness, and then he tells her that she does count to him and sincerely seeks her help. I do agree about Watson drawing out what’s within Holmes, and basically I believe Molly is beginning to do the same thing.
/Nyctalus
Reply
Therefore, I enjoy Moffat's take on the character, because she seems more genuinely independent than the original. Although I do wonder how much of her actions was determined by Moriarity--or by running scared of him.
At Christmas, Holmes seems to be in a very irritable mood. He plays the violin for Mrs. H--but he's really quite rude to everyone else in the room, and his nastiness peaks with Molly. I love that she takes him down--it's very similar to Watson's reaction to "I don't have friends" and Holmes' attempt to apologize--"Stick to ice."
The parallel between Molly and Watson is nicely emphasized in "The Reichenbach Fall": the episode begins with Watson's prodding for Holmes to mind (or learn) his manners and say 'thank you'--in the lab, Holmes actually calls Molly "John" and she also reminds him to say 'Thank you' to her.
Reply
For example I haven’t gotten to Doyle’s Moriarty yet, but I do think the modern Moriarty is creepy and horrible in a rather funny way that it would surprise me if Doyle’s stories could fully conjure. Scott is superb in his depiction of the deranged Jim, suddenly popping up as “ordinary people”, like one of the usually invisible IT-guys at Molly’s hospital, or acting as an actor who is terrified of his employer. Moriarty is an evil shadow that lies behind most bad things and never leaves you in peace. He’s your average guy next door, and still, at a closer look, he’s got suspect intense facial expressions, maniacal manners, and he’s literally far too bored to cope with living a “normal” life…
The last two traits could perhaps be attributed to Holmes as well, but there are - thankfully - some great big differences between them. One is, I believe, that Holmes does indeed have strong feelings for other people, even if he’s very reluctant to permit himself to show them (and probably even to recognize them to himself). Holmes also, unlike Moriarty, does care about people's lives. Another difference is that Sherlock is mostly blatantly honest; he usually doesn’t try to deceive people with faked manners. And when he does disguise himself, it’s mostly quite obvious what he’s trying to do. Like for example when he enters Adler’s house disguised as a vicar… :)
But Moriarty seems like a naughty little boy, someone who never grew up or matured, and like a small child he is completely self-centered and absorbed by his own needs. The delighted glimpse in his eyes when he for a second glances at Holmes in RF, demonstrating how he has managed to fool the journalist with a faked personality, is nothing less than excellent acting from Scott.
Another example is Donovan and Anderson; they seem to be the single most stupid characters in the series, and at least Donovan also manages to be really mean. Holmes is merciless with them, but he seems to have good reason to actually treat them that way. Which, all in all, makes their interactions quite hilarious, I think.
Christmas in “Scandal”, again: I love that scene. It’s true that Sherlock is rude to everyone, but then again, he usually is. And his tirade against Molly seems even so a bit over the top to me. At first he most deliberately ignores her, rolling his eyes, as soon as she enters their little Christmas reception, dressed as if it were a full New Year’s party. Lestrade goes “wow!” at her dress, but Sherlock looks at the computer, until the moment he comes up with his full analysis of her supposed intentions to see someone, topping it with a horrible comment about her mouth and breasts which should have earned him a face slap.
Holmes’ apology comes after realizing that HE was the actual subject of Molly’s attentions. One might wonder why Sherlock is always so concerned about Molly’s supposed relationships with other men that he bothers to make lengthy comments about them? In RF he even tells her that she shouldn’t attempt to have any relationships, while at the same time “inviting” her to have “lunch” with him at the lab. He needs to enter the lab, of course, but why insist to have her around as well? He also starts to distractedly call her "John" (whom we do know he cares very much for) and by the end of the RF episode, Holmes is no longer claiming that he needs Molly's "help" - this time he does admit that he needs HER.
By the way, does Molly Hooper exist in the original Holmes stories? I haven’t spotted her this far - could she be a pure invention of Moffat’s?
/Nyctalus
Reply
Holmes and Moriarity have plenty of lines about how they're like each other....but they really aren't. It goes back to the Christ imagery, I think: Holmes is a savior, perhaps something of an avenging angel. He enjoys the "game" of solving crimes; the fact that he solves them does place him on the side of right. His acts of violence are performed in defense of those he loves: the CIA guy gets it twice in "Scandal"--once for ordering the shooting of Watson and once for abusing Mrs. Hudson.
Andrew Scott is a marvel as Moriarity: he's utterly fascinating--and frightening. He's able to make his eyes go flat; he captures the 'reptilian' sense that Doyle described Moriarity as having. His loopiness is funny--even as it's scary; it's not Holmes' eccentricities, but a genuine disassociation from other people and normality. Moriarity is completely without feeling, without any sense of another's humanity; his contempt for everyone else is why he orchestrates crimes--it's for his entertainment, and he wants to destroy, rather than set things right as Holmes does.
Reply
While I think Doyle often describes Holmes’ cold, rational and sentiment-free reasoning as a great advantage, something admirable, I believe Moffat/Gatiss are more multi-facetted. Holmes is awesome in many ways and has a brilliant capacity for deduction, yes. But the modern version goes to show also the other side of the coin: what a handicap it can be to have a not-so-high level of social IQ and empathy.
The modern Holmes needs to learn quite a few things about showing care for people and appreciating friends. Sherlock and Mycroft have probably been raised in an environment without much love. But I do believe at least Sherlock’s a work in progress. I think the whole of Series 2 has shown Sherlock being confronted with different strong emotions. Emotions that distract him from his intellectual tasks, but also that he needs to come to terms with. In “Scandal” I believe it’s desire and longing. In “Hounds” it’s fear and a sense of doubt in himself. In Reichenbach Falls, finally, it’s pain and love.
/Nyctalus
Reply
The lack of sentimentality helps Holmes when he has to gather evidence: there's nothing else he can do for the dead person, except find justice for him/her. He doesn't allow himself to be distracted by any emotion about the corpse...as he points out to Watson, sounding rather cold, it won't do the person any good. As with much of what Holmes says--it does sound cold, but it's also relentlessly logical, and his purpose, in the end, is actually to achieve good.
The M/G Sherlock Holmes is a very guarded, very wary person--and I agree that season 2 appears to be about, in large part, Holmes letting down some of that guard.
Reply
You’re right that this series seems full of shining religious imagery, which makes a nice contrast to Holmes’ rather cold and rational process of deduction. But I do believe his logical, analysing approach to the crime cases is the best for everyone involved - however cold and heartless as it may seem.
I guess Sherlock had planned to stage his death with Moriarty still alive, since he seemed genuinely shocked by the other’s sudden suicide. It would be interesting to know what happened with Moriarty’s body, though; how would people explain his death into Holmes’ supposed faking of crimes to gain attention? Why kill the “actor” when the “truth” was already out, and then jump? Makes rather little sense to me…
It’s going to be difficult to wait almost a year before knowing what actually happened with Holmes after he threw himself from the roof. Judging by the last scene of RF, he has not left town like he did for three years in the original story to travel around the world, he has apparently just been hanging around. My tin-foil-hat theory is that his hidey-hole will turn out to be Molly’s place. She didn’t seem to “count” among the 3 persons Moriarty had set up to kill as Sherlock’s only friends in the world, so staying with her perhaps wouldn’t mean a threat to any of the targeted victims.
/Nyctalus
Reply
And, by the way....Holmes, in the closeups then, looks quite feminine: he ends up looking as if he's wearing an even stricter form of abaya and hijab than Adler is. And the focus becomes those lovely eyes. To me, it just added a whole other layer to the gender-bending of the whole episode, what with not-gay Watson's love for Holmes, and yes-gay Adler's love for Holmes, and the 'nobody's sure about him' Holmes' fierce protectiveness of both Watson and Adler.
I wonder if the "moment of privacy" was supposed to be the moment when Holmes committed his fake suicide, except he suddenly saw a way out. Then, his confronting Moriarity with this fact resulted in Moriarity's unexpected suicide, and Holmes was back to having to fake his own death.....
I may implode, having to wait for more information--I mean....they're not even close to filming. Aaarrggghh!!!! At least DW starts next week, and I can live off those spoilers. ;)
Reply
And Holmes’ brain is always working, even in a moment of stress. So yes, he probably suddenly got to the conclusion that Moriarty could call the whole thing off, but he hadn’t foreseen the psychopath’s suicide. Which forced him to carry on with his dangerous plan anyway. And Holmes really seems to suffer from having to do it; when he lies to Watson it’s the first time we see him crying. The “sentiment distraction” works with him this time, though, since he’s supposed to appear upset anyway, but for other reasons.
Cumberbatch’s acting is wonderful, by the way. You can tell the difference between when he tries to “act”, admitting he’s a “fake” who invented Moriarty, and then when he tells John he researched HIM just to impress; his whole face contorts like a clown at first, but the tears later do seem genuinely felt.
*Tin-foil-deerstalker on*. My theory is that the paramedics were waiting below with a canvas or something for Holmes to jump into. His showing up ALONE at the border of the roof might have been the signal for them to get ready for the jump (maybe someone was also watching from the opposite building?). Moffat says they filmed a clue that no one seems to have noticed. When John is heading for the building, Sherlock convinces him to stop just the moment we can see a glimpse of a paramedic in the street below. This is a hospital, so it could just be a coincidence of course, but at that moment, John probably didn’t notice the paramedic. And from his original angle, which Holmes wants him to stand at, John can’t see the whole bottom of the hospital because a lower building covers it.
Then John's knocked out for a while, probably enough to allow the paramedics to cover Holmes’ face with blood and put him on the street. And then the paramedics stop Watson from taking Holmes’ pulse. (See how some details are repetitive in this series? This is not the first faking of a death, nor the first attempt at taking a pulse). I still can’t quite explain which body WE saw hitting the sidewalk, though. But at least the street seems clear when the body hits the sidewalk, so no one saw the details.
As for “Scandal” I was thinking the very same thing: Holmes appeared feminine in that clothing, putting emphasis on his stunning eyes. I would probably say “Wow!” even if I WERE gay… :)
/Nyctalus
Reply
I don't think Holmes intended Watson to see him jump. He sent Watson away with the false emergency about Mrs. Hudson, but Watson returned too quickly. Therefore, Holmes had to talk to Watson and keep Watson out of the direct line of sight, as well as explain to Watson why he was committing suicide; I think Holmes' tears were genuine, as he knew what he was doing to Watson....and, by the end of season 2, Holmes has changed a great deal from what he was before "A Study in Pink." Well, not changed so much as having ~thawed~ ...as Watson says at Holmes' grave: "I was so alone....and I owe you so much."
(And there's that IOU again.....)
Reply
Leave a comment