Monday 4 January 2016

No hit Sherlock

I was left confused by Sherlock on New Year's Day. Not so much by the plot - although that was a stretch given January 1 booze levels - but by whether or not I enjoyed or endured it. (Spoilers below btw).


The BBC's lesser spotted flagship show returned to our screens with an episode that appeared to be an adventure that plunged this modern update back into the Conan Doyle era. Except it wasn't, not really.

I'll admit now that I am a fan of Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss' series. It's well cast - with Benedict Cumberbatch nailing the obnoxiously clever and mercurial sleuth - and smartly put together. I like the fact that we get it in short sharp bursts - partly out of necessity of the schedules of the actors/showrunner - and the fact that, in an era of repeats, remakes and revamps this is fresh, intellectual and challenging. But I still don't think the Abominable Bride hit the mark.

The problem with this episode is that mid way in it tried to pick up plot strands from a two-year-old series finale in order to set up another series that won't air for at least a year. Just typing that out sounds a little ridiculous and such a premise is surely doomed to fail? How can they possibly expect casual viewers to keep up or even care?

Is this even what the fans want? If coming up with a 'bridge' episode was intended to satisfy the die hards I feel it was misjudged. Fans were happy enough to lap up the return of Holmes and Watson and putting the duo back into the era of the original books was enough of a crowd pleaser to be going on with. A standalone adventure in this context would've been a real treat. It would've been fine to leave it open to the viewer to determine whether the whole thing was in a drug addled Sherlock's 'Mind Palace' in my view and the non-regulars would've been able to pick it up even with minimal prior knowledge.

The episode itself contained some nice ideas - and the murder committed by an already-dead woman was an intriguing mystery. I just felt it would've been nicer if this were given more prominence, if the show were more centred on 'abominable bride' at its heart, with the character stuff in the background, instead of the other way around. The resolution was, in the end, a little telegraphed and felt a little underwhelming given that we were clearly supposed to be concerned with 'something else'.

I think in the past I've read that the writers consider this to be a 'show about a detective' rather than a 'detective show' but who watching - diehard fan or not - doesn't at least want to see a little bit of skilled sleuthery (if that's even a word)? A little bit more of Sherlock 'being Sherlock' might've been nice.

Moriarty's apparent return at the end of the last series seemed a little bit of a shame to me. Lars Mikkelsen's portrayal of Charles Augustus Magnussen deserved praise as a creepy and memorable villain, yet his devilishness and the events of the episode were wilfully undermined by the final twist. It ensured the show was trending on social media I suppose, is that what these moments are for ultimately?

If the point of this was to introduce the idea that Moriarty might be dead but that a group could be using his name and legacy for their own gains. then it probably could've done this in a way that didn't alienate as many people. I don't want to moan about Sherlock, it retains the potential to be better than most shows when it gets things right - but I just wish it could've pieced together the constituent parts of the episode into a clearer and more enjoyable picture.

It's a long old wait unto the next slice of action from 221B Baker Street, we'll probably have forgotten this by then anyway, right?

Posted by at
Labels: ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)