To start the season we know we are beginning with a re-birth, after which, Sherlock is repeatedly born again and again. The result of which I find disorienting, and un-nerving, as if I'm walking out of a dirty movie theater. I didn't know it was porn when I first entered, but then I stayed .. for hours.
What has drawn us to the Holmes stories through its many adaptations is the consistency of the mind. It is an important facet that the Sherlock character is essentially unknowable, but this BBC series draws us farther and farther away from a recognizable brilliance, to a fetish like, celebrity driven spectacle.
There is a moment in this newest 3rd episode where Mary meets Sherlock at Leinster Gardens, he projects her face on the building and proceeds to tell us that he won that particular facade in a poker game, betting with his kidneys. At this point he became to me completely unrecognizable. Who is this man who lives in his mind yet goes through the trouble to set up an elaborate projection? Who is he that plays poker at such grandiose levels? (Perhaps it was an attempt at humor, something I've always appreciated about the Holmes mythos compared to your other cop and intrigue dramas, but where it succeeds most is in the smart and small moments)
In this season we are also bombarded with Mycrofts political power. While it was intriguing in its small sightless bits in the first season, the obvious necessity to hang together a cogent plot, saw us seeing Mycroft do incredible things .. which of course conversely then makes the whole thing more and more fantastic (for if Mycroft can do all these things, why isn't he just doing them all the time) and straying from the science of deduction to a plot that needs more spectacle.
The distance that this creates between us and the Holmes character, is what I mean by voyeurism. At no point was it bad, it just lost its emotional resonance, like watching porn.
Where is that Sherlock that gets bored? His boredom was the triviality of his battles, the real triviality that we deal with everyday, but go on trying to beat anyway. The science of his thinking that transcends the self, where how and why are not as important as watching us get there. Where is the Sherlock that does that?
I hope That Sherlock comes back (though I doubt he will), I don't like being a voyeur.
This may sound like a bit of a troll but Moffat's Sherlock is better understood as yaoi it seems that this season you have seen through it. Moffat has delivered some great tv moments the blink episode of Dr Who for one but he is very weak at plotting his method seems to be writing himself in a corner and than using deus ex not a great fit for Sherlock Holmes stories.
A nicely written review of a show I have no authority discussing. My wife and I watched the first season and found it to be entertaining almost solely because of the Watson character. -Superb acting in my opinion. It's a show we should probably come back to at some point and then I will either refute or confirm your take on the show.
Thanks for the suggestion, we just might watch more. We just started "The Newsroom." -We'll see if it sticks. Do you write these types of reviews often? FWIW, feel free to post more, I'd be glad to read them.
Er, the projection was insurance against his leaving the building safely. And the poker game was with a criminal, so he was almost certainly undercover on a case. Keep in mind that goddamn near everyone in Britain has read some Conan Doyle -- so the writers have to balance giving us semi-familiar plots but also adding twists to them. 3x03 did this extremely well; familiarity with the plot of the Milverton story actually makes it more difficult to predict what's going to happen. I like the changes to Mycroft. Stories where he featured were always my favorite part of Conan Doyle's writing, and I always wanted more. Would he be more effective in the shadows? Depends on what you mean by effective. Scarier and more ominous, maybe. But he wouldn't contribute to the 95 minutes of television as well. There's only so far you can go with two actors flying solo.There is a moment in this newest 3rd episode where Mary meets Sherlock at Leinster Gardens, he projects her face on the building and proceeds to tell us that he won that particular facade in a poker game, betting with his kidneys. At this point he became to me completely unrecognizable. Who is this man who lives in his mind yet goes through the trouble to set up an elaborate projection? Who is he that plays poker at such grandiose levels? (Perhaps it was an attempt at humor, something I've always appreciated about the Holmes mythos compared to your other cop and intrigue dramas, but where it succeeds most is in the smart and small moments)
I know it was insurance, but off the top of my head I can think of countless other ways to protect himself. The writers put it in that way for a reason, and I didn't like it (or it just seemed like a good symbol for the way they have written this new season). Honestly there's nothing about your criticisms I don't agree with. In a me watching Sherlock watching me way, the stories are still pretty good, but they seemed to lose that whiff of real life.
Yeah, they have. I guess I'm not sure I ever expected 'real life' from Sherlock Holmes anyway. (Although -- Jesus, I've had multiple acquaintances who thought he was a real person.) The more involved the grandiose plots get, the less relatable [why is that not a word suddenly firefox] is Sherlock. Which is why Martin Freeman as Watson is series-saving casting. Cumberbatch is great, but let's be honest, Monk was dull for a reason. The Milverton story is actually my favorite, maybe, of all of Conan Doyle's efforts, because it's so anti- what they turned it into at BBC. Still scintillating TV, but no longer a small story solely about a facet of Sherlock Holmes' character. I know what you mean.Honestly there's nothing about your criticisms I don't agree with. In a me watching Sherlock watching me way, the stories are still pretty good, but they seemed to lose that whiff of real life.