OK, this is going to sound like me repeating myself for the umpteenth time, but I do feel that if not for a certain chap named Moffat this might have been a belter.
Do not get me wrong - I found this Sherlock one-off very enjoyable; with all the brilliant elements of performance, charm, wit, humour, music and cinematography Sherlock fans have come to know, love and expect.
Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Sherlock and John were still on fire; absolutely thriving in parts that were seemingly made for them, and we turned to them in Baker Street once more (if a slightly different version to what we're used to) like we do to two old friends. Una Stubbs as Mrs Hudson was on form too, as was Mark Gatiss as Mycroft, and Andrew Scott's Moriarty was sublime as ever to watch.
And if they had all gone full on with the whole idea of shunning all that had gone before and putting everything into a Victorian Sherlock special, then they might have just about gotten away with it, riding high on throwing out the rule book, and the show's own popularity. But no, in a typically mind-bending timey-wimey twist that even Doctor Who would struggle with, we got this weird mishmash of genres - flitting between the Victorian setting and the 21st century scenes we left off from in series two. Though each individual part may have been crafted and choreographed very well, and with the usual Sherlock panache, the whole thing did leave me very confused and quite annoyed. Tainting Victorian Sherlock with snippets of the original just cheapens the whole enterprise to me really, further enforcing the idea that they merely attempted a Victorian episode just because they thought they could. What's more, the insights we get into the modern Sherlock are horribly frustrating; punctuating quite a bit of the 90 minute special without really giving us as audiences anything towards the overall Sherlock story. Merely cooking up the whole Victorian saga with modern day Sherlock, and then trying to pass it all off as a drug-induced fantasy of the titular hero does seem like a very cheap shot in my eyes.
Also I'm afraid Sherlock's other writer and co-creator comes in for a smidge of criticism too, great though his acting is as Mycroft Holmes. Anyone who knows anything about Mark Gatiss knows that he is a fan of the Gothic genre,and I think he had either been let of the leash with this one, or saw and took his opportunity when writing the Victorian themes. Far, far too much Gothic horror. Yes to have a chilling and thrilling plot is no bad thing, but the sheer amount of clichéd chilling slappings was just border-line glutenous, and certainly quite silly. Even with guest stars like Tim McInnery, this clearly self-driven obsession of the writers came dangerously close to overtaking and smothering the plot.
So yes, an interesting concept certainly, and in the end quite a noble gesture to try and take Sherlock back to its origins. I just wish it had stayed at that. But yet again due mainly as far as I can see, to over-complicated, indulgent and at times arrogant writing, the overall effect, whilst containing quite a few gems, was marred by a very distinct mix up in direction and tone. A self-indulgent Sherlock pleasure trip perhaps but nothing more, and thus I think the sooner they get back to relative normality with the hugely awaited next series the better.
No comments:
Post a Comment