Sherlock is Moff Done Right!

[rabid1st]

Someone I know invited me to see the new Stephen Moffat series, Sherlock. And I thought...NO! Not so much because of Moff, but because it was an "updated, modern version of Sherlock Holmes," a re-imagining of the man in the 21st Century. Sounded like a recipe for disaster to me. But I have inflicted any number of episodes of Murdoch Mysteries and Doctor Who on this friend. So, I figured I owed them, at least, two hours of relatively patient viewing. It wasn't like I was asked to watch The Girls Next Door or something equally vile. And I've made this buddy of mine sit through Graham Norton.

So, I watched the two hour premiere of Sherlock - A Study in Pink.

The first thing I noticed is that this is basically Doctor Who for grown-ups. Or rather, it is Stephen Moffat not watered down for kids. You see, I have often raved here about how Moff is an emotional cripple on the page. How he has a mind that is brilliant and precise, but his work is too clinical to be enjoyable to watch. We saw that all play out in this last season of Doctor Who. His Doctor is a bit of a sociopathic weirdo...and so is his Holmes. The difference is, sociopathic weirdo really works for Holmes. Moff said, quite accurately I think, that the Doctor is an alien trying to be human and that Holmes is a human trying to distance himself from his humanity. Holmes doesn't admire people the way the Doctor admires them.

Remind you of anyone? Okay, that's unfair of me. My apologies to the Moff. I'm sure he is a warm and emotionally generous person in real life. He probably admires a lot of people and I bet his wife and his kids adore him. But the fact remains that warmth doesn't shine through in his writing.

Sherlock Holmes is an emotional and social cripple with a brilliant, precise mind. Moff should be channeling this character. There is also a fair amount of acceptable misogyny that is allowed with Holmes. Holmes hates everyone. Well, everyone but Watson. I was deeply struck by the fact that with Holmes and Watson Moff finds himself capable of handling the same type of relationship that Rose and the Doctor had. Basically, an open acceptance of, even love for, another person's weirdness.

Rose loved the Doctor, not in spite of his alien nature, but because of it. Her defining characteristic in relationship to him was acceptance of the part of him that others found awe-inspiring or just plain irritating and that he often rejected. Rose was not awed by the Doctor, nor did she fear him. She didn't find him tedious or God-like either. She simply went along with his brilliance and had a good time. And it is interesting to me how many fans resented her for that. Yet, here we see Moff's Watson displaying pretty much the same caution-to-the-wind hubris that Rose showed when in the company of the Doctor. Watson enjoys spending time with Holmes, because Holmes is so out of step with the norm. Spending time with him is dangerous. There will always be trouble. Watson finds that exciting. And Holmes needs Watson in much the same way that the Doctor needed Rose. Watson makes Holmes a better person.

When it comes to the plot, I did figure out the murderer before Holmes, but I believe we were supposed to do that. The staging was too obvious for it not to be what Moff wanted from the audience. And amazingly a stunning twist wasn't the real issue in any case. The real issue in this episode is the insight into how brilliantly clinical minds work. We get to experience what it feels like to be out of step with society. Judged wanting, when one is actually several steps ahead of the herd that is judging. Moff understands this alienation. It is one of the reasons he talks down to his Doctor Who audience. I believe he subconsciously holds them in a bit of contempt, because so much of what he sees is invisible to them. He understands Holmes. He knows what it means to see nearly invisible details or understand the folding complexities of time and he expects to lose most of his audience, so he over explains. Here, he doesn't have to talk down to children and play nice. Here he is expecting the audience to keep up with him.

Sherlock is very well done. I will admit that I was bothered by the first twenty minutes or so of it. I wanted to overlay the Victorian fog (when it wasn't really foggy, according to Moff) on every scene. I wanted to wallow in the mores of an earlier time. It felt wrong to not put some kind of gentlemanly check on Holmes. Also Watson was rather unlovable. And, thanks to a limp and a resemblance to House and Wilson (not coincidental but unfortunate) it is as if we are seeing a British version of House. Which is what my host for the viewing called it. The cane was particular unfortunate because it intensified this parallel.

Additionally, the resemblance between Matt Smith and Benedict Cumberbatch, as they deliver Moff's rapid fire dialog and pull their hair out in frustration, works against Sherlock finding its own identity. But, for me, Holmes is more watchable than the current Doctor, because Moff lets Holmes behave like an adult. And, unlike Smith, Cumberbatch has youth AND gravitas. Some of his mercurial shifts in mood are downright scary and you can almost believe the copper who seems certain he will start killing people one day.

So many of the insights into the literary characters rang true for me, from my days of reading the Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. One character in particular, a mysterious figure, struck me as spot on. I easily identified him to the amazement of my less Holmes attuned friend. She didn't even know the name of Holmes arch-enemy. So, she's quite the novice to the literary side of Sherlock Holmes. Though she said she had seen a few of the movies or TV episodes. I don't generally like Holmes on TV or in film. Even the versions that are loved by a general audience, strike me as lacking. Yet, I loved Tom Baker as Sherlock. So, there is definitely a connection in my mind to the Doctor. Here Moff exploits this connection. And his writing gives Holmes a true genius, that sense of being a social outcast simply because he is so very different from other people. They make his differences clear. Moff doesn't cheat on the details. And I like that. He's a writer who is capable of looking at a problem in precise slivers like Holmes. He does Holmes justice. What a shame he didn't do this INSTEAD of Doctor Who!

Rae

Comments

[angely78.livejournal.com]

It is a true shame (and not something Moff will actually *care* about, seeing as he... doesn't) that my gut reaction to seeing who wrote Sherlock was "No f-ing way I'm watching that". Which is his bloody fault, thanks to the sour taste he left in my mouth with Who. Oddly enough I am more inclined to watch it now that you've weighed in than I was before, which says something about you. :-)

Moff: alienating potential viewers since Whenever. :-P

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Yeah! Moff can be trying. But here, he has a true venue for his arrogance and precision and it really does work. I like his Holmes. His Watson is going to need to grow on me, but does reflect back what Moff might see as "wrong" with women. Amy is all things at all times, very annoying, because she is verbalizing all of the male "virtues"...an attempt to make her a buddy and yet also a talkative female, I think. But Watson is allowed to be gruff and just THERE for his friend. It makes Watson a little muted on the screen. Some reviewers called him dull, but I think they were not paying as close attention as Moff expected them to pay.

I hope you do watch it and enjoy it. It's a far better vehicle for Moff than Doctor Who will ever be. It allows him a range to show off his own amazing mind and I, for one, have never doubted that he is brilliant. I have just doubted how he translates it to an audience.

As you say, he alienates potential viewers a lot of the time.

Rae

[sunnytyler001.livejournal.com]

Agreed. With all you said ! :
I enjoyed Sherlock much more than his DW... WHat a shame!

[wickedgillie.livejournal.com]

Ok, just finished watching it. I have to say his Holmes is more Doctorish than his actual Doctor. Plus, I totally see the whole Doctor/Rose vibe you described between him and Watson. In short, I loved it. So, it's proof that Moff CAN write. He just can't write Doctor Who. Pity, that.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Yes! It is rather a pity. This could have made him, maybe WILL make him a name in his own right. The addition of Gatiss could be what is keeping the Moff in check...but I think it is simply that Holmes is a better fit for the Moff. Also, he isn't patronizing the Holmes fans with this.

I'm so glad you loved it and agreed with my assessment. Yeah, Moff can write, he's just not good with Doctor Who. Part of it was the casting of Matt Smith, but Matt isn't nearly as bad as the material he's been given...and the companion. This is also why Rory plays better than Amy...because Moff can't write genuine complex emotions for his female characters. Men are just easier. The audience can assume more with men.

Rae

[gwendolynflight.livejournal.com]

I did really enjoy this, but the crime bits were actually laughably easy, and I did have a problem with that. Watching something by Moff reminds me of this time I made the mistake of dating a biophysics grad, who couldn't stop expressing his hatred of literature (my chosen field), and fell over himself to condescend to me. He explained ph, for crying out loud! That didn't end well, and neither will Moff and I! I'm intelligent and I expect to struggle to understand a 'bona fide genius' like Holmes, not spend 40 minutes waiting for him to figure out the obvious.

However, I did really enjoy the Holmes/Watson relationship, for it proved once and for all that hoyay is more successful than male/female relationships because most writers are misogynists.

That was a bit ranty. Sorry. No, I just mean, look at the parallels you brought up. Why is that okay for two men and not a man and a woman? That kind of relationship between m/f is only impossible if the writer relegates women to merely sexual roles - wife, mother, sexual object. Nothing outside of their relationship to men, who are the important ones.

Weird. After Jekyll, I wouldn't have written this. But Doctor Who ... You know, if they'd gotten the Holmes actor to play Moff's Doctor, I might have been more willing to buy into it. You were right, this guy was more believable in every aspect. I don't understand why they fixated on Matt Smith and over-praised him to the point I expected the second coming when they had genuine talents waiting in the wings. Oi. Okay, maybe that's also unfair. You know what? I'm bitter. I'm bitter that Moff can do this - okay, crappy execution on the mystery part, maybe he should read some Heyer to learn how it's done, but excellent portrayal of alienation, good fun overall, something I'd watch again. So what went wrong with Dr Who? Why did it have to suck so much? Why did he ruin my love for something? Why?

[sensiblecat.livejournal.com]

Very much on the same page as you with Sherlock. My emotional investment in the characters is nil and I think that's a real advantage when you're watching this kind of show.

I dug around on the internet and found out a couple of interesting things. First, that House is filled with Holmes refs, not least the character's name itself. And secondly, that in the original CD series, Watson was invalided home from Afghanistan - we were fighting the same unwinnable war back then.

Other than that, it's interesting that you should mention Rose because this was a companion set-up episode in a very similar mould. I found the scene where Watson junks his cane very similar in tone to the run across Westminster Bridge way back in RTD's Rose. And I hadn't spotted until now how much DW has been influenced by Sherlock Holmes - the maverick genius of indeterminate sexuality, grounded by two intimate relationships - the companion and the nemesis. It's all there, isn't it?

I am also drawn to Ben C - it's like watching Tennant going over to the Dark Side.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Ben C. has made me reconsider my lukewarm support of Matt Smith, truthfully. I had felt that given no real emotional substance to a character and actor must flounder. But here we find Ben mining all sorts of subtleties of out the Moff script.

I have noticed the parallels to Sherlock before in Doctor Who. Probably because of Tom Baker playing both parts. I liked Tom as Sherlock and really wish that he had stayed with it for a time. I've often thought that Tom Baker was the model for Thomas Pitt in the Anne Perry novels. There is something about him that screams Victorian sleuth and I think that was a huge influence on his Doctor prior to him becoming more clownish in the later part of his run. I do like that he returns to Victorian gentleman before his regeneration though.

It is interesting to, that whenever I imagined MY Doctor...the one I would write...which I did quite a lot during the years just after the cancellation, I saw him looking much as Ben C. looks in Sherlock. So, rather Holmes-ian and yet modern. But the suggestion of Holmes goes way back in Doctor Who as you noted...the companion, the science, the indeterminate sexuality...the alien nature. And RTD was smart enough to see that having the companion tell that person's story was vital to the audience relating to such a person.

Moff falls right in with this plan with Watson...perhaps because the source material makes it clear to him that he must. But he could do the same sort of thing with Rory on Doctor Who. That is why Rory works better than Amy, Rory takes a more human approach to the Doctor's alien behavior. The true genius of RTD is that he goes a step beyond just letting Rose SEE her Doctor and translate him for the audience. He lets us see her grow to love him...and to see that he is worthy of that love and returns it.

It isn't just enough that Sherlock is astounding or that the Doctor is magnificent. Anyone can see that. The police all know that Sherlock is an unparalleled genius. They hate him for it or stand in awe of him. The real art is to allow the audience to see more of him than is apparent to most people. I think that is the role of the Doctor's companion and of Watson. The companions we think of as successful...Jo Grant, Sarah Jane, Susan, Jamie, Rose...all looked at the Doctor and saw something beyond what everyone else saw in him...teacher, cohort, grandfather, old soldier/mentor, life's companion. If you look at the lesser companions...they seem to view it all as if he was some irritant or cosmic bus driver. They take a more pedestrian view of him, more one-dimensional. Yes, he's a genius...but he's not much else to them. Sadly, for all of her fawning, I feel Amy falls into this category of companion.

Rae
happy to hear that you enjoyed Sherlock. I am looking forward to more by this team.

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Oh, bless you for saying Moff should read some Heyer. We have probably discussed my love of Heyer in the past, but I don't mind saying that everyone should read her to learn how mystery and romance are done. Meanwhile, yeah, the mystery was very telegraphed in this. I watched it again and was struck by the obvious clue planting that led me to easily figure it out.

Anyway...as far as why Moff ruined Doctor Who...there might be a clue in Ben C. turning down the roll. It is possible that Moff didn't have his pick of the actor crop. I would imagine very few people were willing to step in and follow David Tennant's success. I mean, young up and coming actors like Matt Smith certainly wouldn't sneer. But Tony Curran and Ben C. and Naismith and some of the other names that would have done a very credible job, might have shied away from taking over when RTD was also leaving.

However, I did really enjoy the Holmes/Watson relationship, for it proved once and for all that hoyay is more successful than male/female relationships because most writers are misogynists.

Why is that okay for two men and not a man and a woman?

Whenever you have two people with a very close friendship, there is always a suggestion of sexuality. Hence all the slash for Lord of the Rings and House. I think this is biological rather than learned behavior. Thus the immediate hoyay with Holmes and Watson, despite their denials of attraction. The fact is that there are more straight people in the world, so it is easier to go there with female/male. Also, males are easier to write. Women show multiple and inconsistent facets of themselves. It's not that either sex is wrong...it's just that females are harder to write successfully...because to write a character you characterize.

In the case of nerds, who often write Sci-Fi programs, you have mostly male basement dwellers. No girlfriends, possibly no real friends. They can relate easily to being an outsider...an alien...a superhero. They dream of apocalypse and women in spandex with really big weapons who can kick the ass of anyone but somehow never question the orders of a dweeb genius. It all plays out in their fantasy worlds. They are not even thinking about relating to women. They have no frame of reference for that. Women are the enemy, scary and aloof. So, of course they can't write for them.

Additionally, Moff speaks the truth through Sherlock, genius likes to show off. Moff is quite the show-off when it comes to wrapping his plots around and then tying them up neatly. He loves to leave clues and then have the clues make perfect sense. But he underestimates the audience. He talks down to us AND is transparent at the same time. That's why we can easily figure out what is going on in the story.

Compare Bad Wolf...a message Rose left for herself. Well, who could really figure that out? It would be a guess if you did. But the crack in the wall, was part of the greater story in a much more obvious way. Amy wasn't real. Her life made no sense. It made it hard for me (and others) to like her. I easily understood that it should be part of the plot and centered on the crack in her wall. The machine that saves all, the Pandorica, is just as nonsensical as the TARDIS towing Earth home...more so, because we saw the TARDIS tow a ship out of a black hole and do other extraordinary things, but we know nothing of the Pandorica.

But it is expected that it will save everyone and in a way that is foreshadowed...we know the universe won't end...so there is very little drama. In Holmes we see the same sort of thing...everyone takes a cab...the pills are self inflicted therefore the murderer makes them take them. Probably he tells them something that will make them take the pills. I did like the interplay with Holmes and I liked that we don't know which pill was the right one even at the end. I think I do know...but then...that's a bit scary. And it's better to have us all retain that sliver of doubt in ourselves that Holmes is shown to have as well.

Rae

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

It is a shame really. Because Doctor Who is just as important a character as Holmes and it irks me that Moff doesn't give the audience the same level of respect. Yes, he is right about the Doctor. The Doctor wants to be human. I'm not sure the Doctor is an angel. Though if you take the biblical fire and brimstone angels into account, than maybe he is. I wish all of the Doctor Who writers would stop worshiping him though and start making him an alien genius from an advanced civilization again. Someone who admires people for a real reason...that's another reason that Rose worked so well. The Doctor admired her for real reasons...she was adaptable, clever, kindhearted and loyal and fierce. All very true human qualities and things that he also was striving to be.

[thisficklemob.livejournal.com]

I came across this link, and thought of you: Patient Advocate Foundation. Don't know if they could help you, but I thought it was worth a try.

[gwendolynflight.livejournal.com]

Well, yes. Sometimes I hate that my favorite genre is male-dominated by poorly socialized geek types. Though I guess they say write what you know! Eheh.

I would've liked the pill thread more if I'd never seen The Princess Bride, and once we got to that final scene I couldn't stop thinking about Fizzini shouting "What is that, over there?!" and switching gobletsbottles. ::snerk::

Hadn't realized he turned down the role! That does makes sense. If Moff was writing the role for someone else, and settled for the closest he could get ... yeah, that explains a lot.

Yay, mutual Heyer love! No, we haven't discussed her, I just got into her mysteries this past Christmas on my sister's rec. She's pushing me to read the romances as well. o.o

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Well, I would suggest you give the romances a try. She started me on romance when I actually held it in some contempt.

The reason I am so very hard on the geek boys and their socialization is that I was a girl among them as a teen. I spent all of my youth reading nothing but science fiction and the old grand adventure tales...like Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes and a few horse stories like the Walter Farley books. But I was definitely a scifi geek girl and I used to hang out at the poorly lit and geek filled comic shops that specialized in scifi movies and books. The boys in those shops were often very sweet but very awkward fellows who were slow to accept me in their midst and were somewhat hostile to women or unable to communicate well with them.

Actually, they didn't really believe in me, an intelligent fangirl. The best they could do was treat me as one of the guys. Which is one thing I constantly see reflected in the adult geek writing. They don't seem to think that there could be a girl with a real interest in scifi and no hostile (spirit crushing) or sexual intent. Of course, lots of males have trouble recognizing that women often have no immediate sexual intent. That's what leads to 80 percent of our misunderstandings, in my opinion. As I said though, I do think women have the same tendency to bring mating issues into relationships. We just are not as single minded about it all.

But, back to Heyer. I learned to tolerate mysteries as my first foray into non-scifi adventure literature...because of Holmes. And so I picked up a Heyer mystery. And then, quite by accident, a romance. The romance was so very good...it was The Grand Sophie, I believe...that I devoured all of her books and then tried to branch out. I had less luck with romance for a time. But today I can often hit on a well crafted book..it's about 1 in 5, I think. Still, there is nobody quite like Heyer. The Devil's Cub or Sylvester, also good choices to start.

Rae

[rabid1st.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link. It does look like it might have helped me with my job issues, earlier. But I'm not sure it can help with my current problems. I must remember to call about my case though. I haven't heard anything from them and we are going on a few weeks, now.

Rae

[gwendolynflight.livejournal.com]

I was the same! Except I didn't hang out in comic book stores so much as the scifi/fantasy section of the public library, being broke and all. And even there guys would treat me like an exotic creature. I had one guy propose marriage (not seriously, but you know) because I was wearing an anime t-shirt, and it was shoujou! He didn't care what kind, just that I liked anime at all. Very odd. And frustrating, because I'd be like, what do you think of Asimov, and they'd be like, you don't want to read him, he's hard scifi, and I'd be like, actually I'm very interested in physics, and they'd goggle. I'm just getting tired of men assuming I'm stupid, really. Like, that show Man Caves on HGTV is starting to piss me off. I like fire, and playing pool, and video games on large screen TVs, why are these defined as manly and given to men for free on your show? Why can't I have a (wo)man cave? Arrgh.

There's definitely a correlation between geeks not understanding women and fearing them/assuming hostile intent. Very Freudian, this. Not the silly Freud, the Civilization and its Discontents Freud. (only Freud worth reading!)

I'll definitely give her other books a try, then. Lucky, this. I'd just run out of mysteries!

Aw, Walter Farley! I read all of those, even the silly one with the ghost horse. ::singing:: Memories ....

[gwendolynflight.livejournal.com]

That segue to Man Caves didn't work ... I meant, tired of men assuming I'm stupid, AND that I can't possibly be interested in the same things, like fire, and pool, and large TVs. Makes more sense, that.

Whoa! Are we discussing G.Heyer now, too?

[astitchintime-9.livejournal.com]

Count me in as another of her admirers!

The Devil's Cub or Sylvester, also good choices to start.

Seconded! Also, Venetia, Frederica and Faro's Daughter.

My fave of her mysteries is Behold, Here's Poison (the sequel to Death in the Stocks), because I am tickled by Randall!

And The Black Moth (her first published work) is in public domain and available online.


P.S. - F.Y.I.: before I quested through every library (and bookstore) in search of G.Heyer books, I searched for (and read) every Walter Farley I could find. (But the original book was still the best!)

Re: Whoa! Are we discussing G.Heyer now, too?

[astitchintime-9.livejournal.com]

Have to add two more of my favorites: The Reluctant Widow and The Talisman Ring are screwball comedy-mystery-romances. Love 'em!