Guest post - Spoilers - Abominable Bride Review
Once again, my occasional collaborator Silke Ketelsen has some things to say. Read on....(Alistair).
Written by Silke Ketelsen
BAM! After a year of hype-hyper-the hypest The Abominable Bride has finally hit our screens and.... well, nothing really, except trending on twitter (again), instigating a tumblr storm (again) and outselling Star Wars in Korea. Not a bad pay-off for a year's work, really.
'You will like it even
more than you think!' and 'It's even better than we can actually tell you!' and
such were the things we were told by cast and crew. I started to become
suspicious when they went on with, 'It's a Christmas special – except not
really.' and 'It's a stand alone, but it furthers the plot.' Because how could
it be a circle and a square? Finally, 'It will explain how Moriarty did
it and whether he's really dead or not.' Because that was what we were really
worried about since S3 aired, right? Only not.
But, let's start with the
positive bits before I start foaming at the mouth, shall we?
I think it was rather
beautifully executed. Not to the gold-standard that was, for me, Paul McGuigan,
but definitely a giant step up from the ugliness that was TEH and the
mediocrity of TsoT and HLV.
The translation of the
Baker Street set was a work of genius (as we are wont to get from Arwel Wyn
Jones) and the floating paper scene elevated the text on screen technique into
artwork. Direction, camera, lighting, sets, costumes, hair and make-up and, of
course, the acting were, for me, all worthy of the show called 'Sherlock'. I
also especially liked the very last scene when the camera travels from the
inside Victorian 221B to the outside modern Baker Street. Lovely!
Great sets. |
Which now brings me to the
part of the work that was – again – divisive, to say the least. Pure genius to
some and overblown drivel to others, Moffat & Gatiss delivered a script
that was both in equal measure and often at the same time.
They have stated in
interviews that for them everything that went before – be it pastiche,
adaptation or scholarly work – is part of the Sherlock Holmes canon. And hence
we get references to all and sundry all over the place - which is part of the
delight, if you like to figure out such things. Also they like to refence
themselves. A lot. And therein lies the danger because that can get very
tedious very quickly for anyone but the most ardent fans. And, when everything
is a reference to something else it leaves little room for something
substantial and new. What are you going to refence to in future episodes? Your
own self-references?
A source of irritation? |
As soon as the intro
started I knew people expecting a pure Victorian episode would be disappointed.
I, personally, was intrigued because I'm not really a fan of the Victorian
adaptation (although I am guilty of wanting to see BC in period costume –
little did I know that it would cost me the Cumbercurls). But the writers had
had the weird and wonderful idea that their show needed an Inception-esque
Frequency-invoking whose-dream-is-it-anyway one off (I hope) to once and for
all allieviate our biggest fear: Is Moriarty still alive? Did no one ever tell
them that for most fans Mary is the far greater source of irritation? When will
we get rid of her?
So, Sherlock was actually
present when Moriarty shot himself in the head. Likely the back of his skull
was blown away as shown later when he pulled the same stunt at 221B in
Sherlock's mind palace. He collapsed onto the floor, lying in a puddle of his
own blood with bits of brain and bones floating in there. Yet, the airing of
the Miss Me?-video, which could have been shot at any old time before M.'s
death, convinces Sherlock that he has to make double sure that M. is really,
really dead, deader, super-dead.
Which begs the question:
how did he know about the video? He was already on the plane and en route to
Eastern Europe when it aired. Did Mycroft tell him on the phone? But, I
digress. Back to researching Moriarty's death.
The Abominable shot! |
What better way to do
that than to delve deep into one's mind palace and re-enact a case one has once
read about which happened anno 1895 when a woman standing on a balcony above
the street with two revolvers first went on a shooting spree and then seemingly
shot herself in the mouth with one of them. Which are, of course, totally
similar circumstances to someone standing right opposite you and shooting
himself with a single gun.
No, one cannot just exhume
Moriarty (as one does later with the abominable Emilia) and make sure his
corpse is really stone cold dead, just in case he wasn't cremated – which would
have been an excellent means of ensuring his super-deadness. Too pedestrian.
And no, one cannot just
think (why can't people just THINK?!) very hard (poor lamb) about it and come
to the conclusion that there really is no way of faking a shot in the mouth,
witnessed by the world's one and only consulting detective, no less, and that
most likely a pre-death recording was used by someone else. Or, if you insist
on complicated, that M. might have had a double or even a twin. Because it's
never twins (what about the triplet husbands in TSoT? Twins - no, but triplets
– yes?).
One has to take a lot of
drugs to delve deep into one's MP (which one never before seemed to have any
trouble entering at a moment's notice) and investigate the terribly similar
case of The Abominable Bride. Well, I think that's a really complicated and cumbersome
method of doing detective work. Not to mention the risks to one's health. I
know whom I'll not ask to search for my missing cat (he'll probably end
up in old Egypt, consulting with Bastet).
During the course of that
investigation we're treated to many beautiful, funny, dramatic, heart-rending
scenes which all have one thing in common: no one knows exactly how to interpret them. Where dedicated Johnlockers (people who are convinced Sherlock
and John will end up in a romantic relationship) see John Watson kicking
Moriarty over the edge of the Reichenbach Fall as him getting rid of Sherlock's
reluctance to enter such a relationship, others are convinced that 'I'm not
gay!'Watson gives a homophobic heave-ho to homosexuality itself.
Wet isn't it? |
Now I really like
ambiguity - I do! - but one can overdo it, you know. When everything is
ambivalent and nothing is ever as it seems – why should I care? About anything?
I really, really wish we
could stop all this nonsense and get back to solving some crimes. How do you
make a show about a detective (not a detective show) without solid cases? I'm
so terribly fed up with the never ending discussion about SH's sexual
orientation. I do not need to know! I don't care! He can fancy or not whomever
he likes! There are more aspects to his character – and extremely interesting
aspects, I should think – than his sexuality.
Lots of pointy hats... |
The same holds true for
the dramatic as well as ridiculous finale when Holmes discovers the 'Monstrous
Regiment of Women' (King) in a desanctified church where they chant sinister
invocations while wearing purple hoods invoking the KKK. What good does that do
them? Has it any sense or meaning besides creating a reference to the first
Sherlock Holmes movie? Is it clumsy social commentary? A riposte at those always
taking Moffat to task for his perceived anti-feminism? Who cares. For me it's
simply another cheap effect gone wrong.
However, Holmes discovers
that Emilia Ricoletti's spectre has been used after her departure from this
mortal coil to cover the murders of her sisters in scarlet and thus our
Sherlock suddenly knows that Moriarty is dead as a door nail while his
followers do the same with him. Geez. Not that anyone could have come up with
that idea without a mind palace.
Now, in the real world (or
is it? What about Mycroft's different ties?) everyone is quite worried about
Sherlock's drug use (again) while he reassures them it was just for the case
(again). I cannot help but feel that Mofftiss are now even referencing
'Elementary' which in light of everything what went on before seems to me a bit
in bad taste. And while I have nothing whatsoever against drugs per se and can
even accept Sherlock as a careful user, I'm a bit disappointed with too weak to
function and drugged out of his mind Sherlock.
Because I personally like
hero!Sherlock (even if he says they don't exist) who is always the cleverest
man in the room (until Mycroft turns up) and who has no deep seated self-esteem
problems, but feels quite at home in his own skin, and does surely not pine after
John Watson or is even unable to function without him. Furthermore I like my
Watsons doggedly loyal and supportive even when actually married to someone
else.
Why does every hero need
clay feet? Seriously, tell me that! Someone said elsewhere how delighted they
were upon the first season of Sherlock hitting the screens to watch a
protagonist without a disabling past – now Sherlock has personal ghosts that
overshadow his every sunny day. Why? Is it really so much more interesting? Or
does one simply have to follow the cliché?
Purportedly Moffat &
Gatiss are big fans of Sherlock Holmes – how come they have to deconstruct him
ever further? They have already robbed him of everything that made him unique –
his intellect and his work, the very things that define him! - and made him
into a mere shadow of his former formidable self. Why do that to someone you
claim to love? Because you always kill the things you love (and don't my
orchids know it)? But when Moffat tells us, cackling with glee, that Holmes
wasn't only very clever, but quite mad, I have a premonition of a Dibdin-like
spectre rising in the English fog and cannot help but shiver. Let's not go there, please.
Moffat and Gatiss are two
vain men on a success trip whose super hype is now practically rolling alone
and renders them more or less critic-proof so they won't stop anytime soon. Why
should they? They're on the cusp of their respective careers and only
diminishing viewer count numbers would make them reconsider. Which I guess is
unlikely to happen anytime soon. What a shame.
Unless the Chinese step
in. Much was made of TAB being shown in general release in China. And it is, of
course, the most interesting future market. Everyone wants to sell to China
these days. Well, it seems the Chinese were not so enamoured with TAB.
According to Douban (a Chinese website with more than 53 million registered
users that recommends potentially interesting books/movies/music to them in
addition to serving as a social network and record keeper; also a good place to
find ratings and reviews of books/movies/music) TAB is only rated a 7.4, after
S1/S2 respectively achieving 9.3/9.5 and even S3 still an 8.8.
Thank you, dear Alistair! That was fast! What do *you* think about it?
ReplyDeleteYour review goes into a lot more depth than mine. My opinion was more instinctive and driven largely by my desire for the promised stand-alone Victorian episode. I still wish they'd done that. There are things to enjoy in ABOM but, overall, it misses the mark for me.
DeleteThis encapsulates and summarizes much of my own opinion about the episode, expressed much better than I ever could. In addition, the fact that there were showings in movie theatres for an admission charge shows their true colors. SHERLOCK is not a labour of love; it is a pathway to fame and wealth lined with the coins from pockets of young, decidedly not wealthy, fans. It is a magician's sleight of hand--here,look at this shiny thing with which I will do amazing tricks, but pay no mind to my other hand in your pocket. I have become very jaded and suspicious about anything said or done by Mofftiss; the talent of the actors, set designers, costumers, special effects team, and such, make for a pretty production, but at the heart of it are two cynics giddy with their own power.
ReplyDeleteWell it is a commercial venture at the end of the day. It does need to make money. It can be that and a labour of love. I also don't think that Moffat and Gatiss are in any need of booming (guess the reference?). For me, my objection rests solely on the fact that they didn't deliver the stand-alone episode I wanted.
DeleteThank you for the compliment! I have nothing whatsoever against them making money off their work, as Alistair says above, it is a commercial undertaking, after all. I just wish we'd get our money's worth out of it - which I'm increasingly doubtful about. And I agree that I do get a somewhat cynical vibe of them, too.
DeleteGood review. Although I recognize the good acting, writing, and production values of "Sherlock" in general, I've never liked the modern-version, since I don't like updated Holmes. (Keep him in the correct time period.) When this one, represented in numerous places as a stand-alone Victorian episode that would let us see Cumberbatch as the proper Holmes, went off the cliff with the modern-day tie-ins and drug hallucinations, I was unhappy, to say the least. (My more-vitriolic review can be found at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-reviews/R3RNQWL1EPAZVP/ref=cm_cr_pr_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B013JBJ7EG )
ReplyDeleteI've read that only yesterday! Unlike you I do like the modern version better, but otherwise I agree.
Delete