Cumberbatch is a boss. His Sherlock obviously deviates from Doyle's Holmes dramatically, but he makes it work; he brings a distinct "je ne donne pas une baise seule*" to the role that I think makes the character compelling, and quite distinct from most other interpretations of Holmes.
Like Howard's Holmes. Ronald Howard is my comfort Holmes: whenever I'm ill, which is often [given my propensity to forget coats and socks and things], I curl up and watch his clever, empathetic deductions and kindly, bumbling Watson. Just like Stupid Watson from Hark! A Vagrant. I love Stupid Watson.
What I appreciated most about the BBC series was that the writers and actors didn't try to definitively "answer" most of the questions Doyle left us with. The novels and Adventures have a distinct flatness that, whether it was the result of Doyle's hatred for Holmes or the Victorian milieu, has left generations of critics academically shanking each other to assert their own view of Holmes and his relationships as the 'correct' one. The BBC certainly has put their own spin on Holmes, but when you step back and try to identify what they have definitively asserted, it's pretty much impossible. You can go round and round about whether or not Sherlock is anti-social, a-sexual, autistic, etc. without re...
Like Howard's Holmes. Ronald Howard is my comfort Holmes: whenever I'm ill, which is often [given my propensity to forget coats and socks and things], I curl up and watch his clever, empathetic deductions and kindly, bumbling Watson. Just like Stupid Watson from Hark! A Vagrant. I love Stupid Watson.
What I appreciated most about the BBC series was that the writers and actors didn't try to definitively "answer" most of the questions Doyle left us with. The novels and Adventures have a distinct flatness that, whether it was the result of Doyle's hatred for Holmes or the Victorian milieu, has left generations of critics academically shanking each other to assert their own view of Holmes and his relationships as the 'correct' one. The BBC certainly has put their own spin on Holmes, but when you step back and try to identify what they have definitively asserted, it's pretty much impossible. You can go round and round about whether or not Sherlock is anti-social, a-sexual, autistic, etc. without re...
Cumberbatch is a boss. His Sherlock obviously deviates from Doyle's Holmes dramatically, but he makes it work; he brings a distinct "je ne donne pas une baise seule*" to the role that I think makes the character compelling, and quite distinct from most other interpretations of Holmes.
Like Howard's Holmes. Ronald Howard is my comfort Holmes: whenever I'm ill, which is often [given my propensity to forget coats and socks and things], I curl up and watch his clever, empathetic deductions and kindly, bumbling Watson. Just like Stupid Watson from Hark! A Vagrant. I love Stupid Watson.
What I appreciated most about the BBC series was that the writers and actors didn't try to definitively "answer" most of the questions Doyle left us with. The novels and Adventures have a distinct flatness that, whether it was the result of Doyle's hatred for Holmes or the Victorian milieu, has left generations of critics academically shanking each other to assert their own view of Holmes and his relationships as the 'correct' one. The BBC certainly has put their own spin on Holmes, but when you step back and try to identify what they have definitively asserted, it's pretty much impossible. You can go round and round about whether or not Sherlock is anti-social, a-sexual, autistic, etc. without reaching any definitive conclusion because the cast/crew/co. has given us enough evidence to reasonably support any opinion.
Unlike Doyle's creations, however, each moment of the show has clearly been thoughtfully created. That pervasive flatness which marked the characters and invaded every aspect of the stories that was not the mystery itself has been replaced with purposeful development. Instead of Doyle going, "I can't even be bothered to remember where what's-his-name Watson was injured," we've got Gatiss and Moffat infusing the stories with character development and plot arcs so finely nuanced that, like real life, the occurrences can nearly always be interpreted however the viewer pleases.
Oh, Christ. I've done it again. I used to have a life until I started writing this damn novel-length paper on that moron Holmes. Now I harass my professors, my friends, and random online communities about the quirks of 221b. What am I supposed to do with a thesis on Holmes? Become a Holmesian Scholar? Do those even exist? Do they live huddled together in the renovated crannies of Baker Street like the huddled masses that once crowded Manhattan? Can I farm myself out as a Consulting Scholar who critically assesses contemporary interpretations of the Baker Street Boys? Or am I just setting myself up for a lifetime of cheap cigarettes, vodka from plastic bottles, and ramen cooked in the salty water of my miserable, unfulfilled tears?
Man. That would be unfortunate.
*family website, right?
(more)Like Howard's Holmes. Ronald Howard is my comfort Holmes: whenever I'm ill, which is often [given my propensity to forget coats and socks and things], I curl up and watch his clever, empathetic deductions and kindly, bumbling Watson. Just like Stupid Watson from Hark! A Vagrant. I love Stupid Watson.
What I appreciated most about the BBC series was that the writers and actors didn't try to definitively "answer" most of the questions Doyle left us with. The novels and Adventures have a distinct flatness that, whether it was the result of Doyle's hatred for Holmes or the Victorian milieu, has left generations of critics academically shanking each other to assert their own view of Holmes and his relationships as the 'correct' one. The BBC certainly has put their own spin on Holmes, but when you step back and try to identify what they have definitively asserted, it's pretty much impossible. You can go round and round about whether or not Sherlock is anti-social, a-sexual, autistic, etc. without reaching any definitive conclusion because the cast/crew/co. has given us enough evidence to reasonably support any opinion.
Unlike Doyle's creations, however, each moment of the show has clearly been thoughtfully created. That pervasive flatness which marked the characters and invaded every aspect of the stories that was not the mystery itself has been replaced with purposeful development. Instead of Doyle going, "I can't even be bothered to remember where what's-his-name Watson was injured," we've got Gatiss and Moffat infusing the stories with character development and plot arcs so finely nuanced that, like real life, the occurrences can nearly always be interpreted however the viewer pleases.
Oh, Christ. I've done it again. I used to have a life until I started writing this damn novel-length paper on that moron Holmes. Now I harass my professors, my friends, and random online communities about the quirks of 221b. What am I supposed to do with a thesis on Holmes? Become a Holmesian Scholar? Do those even exist? Do they live huddled together in the renovated crannies of Baker Street like the huddled masses that once crowded Manhattan? Can I farm myself out as a Consulting Scholar who critically assesses contemporary interpretations of the Baker Street Boys? Or am I just setting myself up for a lifetime of cheap cigarettes, vodka from plastic bottles, and ramen cooked in the salty water of my miserable, unfulfilled tears?
Man. That would be unfortunate.
*family website, right?
Like Howard's Holmes. Ronald Howard is my comfort Holmes: whenever I'm ill, which is often [given my propensity to forget coats and socks and things], I curl up and watch his clever, empathetic deductions and kindly, bumbling Watson. Just like Stupid Watson from Hark! A Vagrant. I love Stupid Watson.
What I appreciated most about the BBC series was that the writers and actors didn't try to definitively "answer" most of the questions Doyle left us with. The novels and Adventures have a distinct flatness that, whether it was the result of Doyle's hatred for Holmes or the Victorian milieu, has left generations of critics academically shanking each other to assert their own view of Holmes and his relationships as the 'correct' one. The BBC certainly has put their own spin on Holmes, but when you step back and try to identify what they have definitively asserted, it's pretty much impossible. You can go round and round about whether or not Sherlock is anti-social, a-sexual, autistic, etc. without re...
Like Howard's Holmes. Ronald Howard is my comfort Holmes: whenever I'm ill, which is often [given my propensity to forget coats and socks and things], I curl up and watch his clever, empathetic deductions and kindly, bumbling Watson. Just like Stupid Watson from Hark! A Vagrant. I love Stupid Watson.
What I appreciated most about the BBC series was that the writers and actors didn't try to definitively "answer" most of the questions Doyle left us with. The novels and Adventures have a distinct flatness that, whether it was the result of Doyle's hatred for Holmes or the Victorian milieu, has left generations of critics academically shanking each other to assert their own view of Holmes and his relationships as the 'correct' one. The BBC certainly has put their own spin on Holmes, but when you step back and try to identify what they have definitively asserted, it's pretty much impossible. You can go round and round about whether or not Sherlock is anti-social, a-sexual, autistic, etc. without reaching any definitive conclusion because the cast/crew/co. has given us enough evidence to reasonably support any opinion.
Unlike Doyle's creations, however, each moment of the show has clearly been thoughtfully created. That pervasive flatness which marked the characters and invaded every aspect of the stories that was not the mystery itself has been replaced with purposeful development. Instead of Doyle going, "I can't even be bothered to remember where what's-his-name Watson was injured," we've got Gatiss and Moffat infusing the stories with character development and plot arcs so finely nuanced that, like real life, the occurrences can nearly always be interpreted however the viewer pleases.
Oh, Christ. I've done it again. I used to have a life until I started writing this damn novel-length paper on that moron Holmes. Now I harass my professors, my friends, and random online communities about the quirks of 221b. What am I supposed to do with a thesis on Holmes? Become a Holmesian Scholar? Do those even exist? Do they live huddled together in the renovated crannies of Baker Street like the huddled masses that once crowded Manhattan? Can I farm myself out as a Consulting Scholar who critically assesses contemporary interpretations of the Baker Street Boys? Or am I just setting myself up for a lifetime of cheap cigarettes, vodka from plastic bottles, and ramen cooked in the salty water of my miserable, unfulfilled tears?
Man. That would be unfortunate.
*family website, right?
I thought that episode was really good.