Happy with Holmes
Now that season 2 of Sherlock is over (NOOOO!), I just want to say that as far I’m concerned, the massive downer that was “A Scandal in Belgravia” was to some extent remedied by “The Hounds of Baskerville,” despite the visual wank-fest that was Sherlock’s “mind-palace” (no-one should ever be made to look like Tom Cruise in anything; and a striking insight doesn’t actually physically strike you, at least not in my experience. But then I don’t even have a mind bedsit). And the series really redeemed itself with tonight’s “Reichenbach Fall.”
No need for spoiler alerts. I’ll just say this: here was a Holmes seriously unpleasant, and unequivocally so; a Holmes self-limitingly arrogant; a Holmes less in control of some situations than Watson (or Moriarty); a flawed and even troubling human being, and much, much more interesting for it than the superficially vulnerable but ultimately invincible genius of “Scandal.” One could be picky and say that the two characters who do the most damage to Sherlock in this episode (and play into Moriarty’s hand in the process) are both women, but the script didn’t really focus on their gender — or only to the extent that Holmes, in his by now familiar misogynist vein, treated one of them reprehensibly first and thus set himself up for a, forgive me, fall (this Holmes, after all, hasn’t been taught the lesson Irene Adler teaches Doyle’s Holmes; no wonder this Sherlock is much more of an unreconstructed male than his Victorian ancestor…). And for once there was nothing even vaguely funny about his dismissive attitude to Molly.
This is the Sherlock that awed me so much in season 1: so clever, so knowing, so craftily constructed, and so good at sustained two-handers. The scenes with Moriarty and Holmes are a treat. And the translation of the Reichenbach Falls confrontation into 21st-century terms works brilliantly, movingly, and has left me far more flummoxed than I’d expected to be. Wherever they’re boldly going, outer space or New Zealand, Cumberbatch and Freeman better come back for another series. I demand answers.
PS.: What’s a deerstalker? “It’s an ear-hat!”
- Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
- Click to print (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
- Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)
5 Responses to Happy with Holmes
Leave a ReplyCancel reply
Recent Comments
- Premodern Performance-based Research: A Partial Bibliography – Alabama Shakespeare Project on My Trouble with Practice-as-Research
- Premodern Performance-based Research: A Partial Bibliography – Alabama Shakespeare Project on Where is the Theatre in Original Practice?
- Alex on Steven Moffat, Sherlock, and Neo-Victorian Sexism
- Tim Keenan on Where is the Theatre in Original Practice?
- Holger Syme on 1920s Berlin Theatre: Research Marginalia 1
Archives
- November 2021
- April 2020
- March 2020
- October 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- July 2017
- May 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
Copyright
Holger Syme's work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License.Images may be reused as long as their source is properly attributed in accordance with the Creative Commons License detailed above. Many of the photos here were taken at the Folger Shakespeare Library; please consult their policy on digital images as well.
Just watched Reichenbach. I, too, enjoyed it a lot – but (without spoiling anything) as for the “not in control” and “self-limiting” parts, I think I will reserve judgment until I see next season’s premiere. I’m betting there are a few more shoes left to drop.
After the end of the final episode of the second series, Steven Moffatt and Mark Gatiss both announced on Twitter that a third series was in the works, and had been commissioned at the same time as Series 2.
In this last episode, Sherlock tells Moriarty “I am you.” Moriarty is brilliant because he represents a demonic version of Sherlock , and if you believe in Sherlock’s brilliance, misogynistic or not, you have to admire Moriarty.
Ah, you haven’t seen this one yet, have you? I absolutely can see why there might be disagreement about him in the earlier episodes. But in this one, I think he’s kind of indisputably brilliant — and a really intriguing reinvention of the character.
The next thing you need to explain for me is why you like this Moriarty so much.