Busy For Fun Blogs: Sherlock

Showing posts with label Sherlock. Show all posts

Mark Gatiss on 'Sherlock' series 2

Speaking at the Kapow convention over the weekend, writer/actor Mark Gatiss (League Of Gentlemen) divulged details about the second series of Sherlock. The new three-part run will adapt Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's "A Scandal In Bohemia", "The Hound Of The Baskervilles" and "The Final Problem".

Gatiss, writer/co-creator:

Having had a successful first run, we knew that the natural order would be to do the three most famous things, so we're doing a version of [those three stories.] They just fall like that, and then it's a question of how to get out of that cliffhanger! Now that the scripts are well underway, [it's] about trying to find certain things between the three of them, where we can find a little bit of an arc. You don't want to just go back to the beginning. You've got to move on somewhere.

Gatiss will write the "Baskervilles" update, co-creator Steven Moffat will write the premiere "Bohemia", and Steve Thompson is writing "Final Problem", meaning no change to the series 1 lineup. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman will both return, as Freeman's commitment to The Hobbit has been factored into the scheduling. Sherlock isn't expected to return until later this year on BBC1.

What do you make of this news? Is it a wise decision to just remake the existing Sherlock Holmes stories, or were you hoping for more original plots?

What did you make of 'Sherlock', America?

The BBC's three-part update of Sherlock Holmes concluded last night on PBS in the States, so I was wondering what any Americans reading thought of it. The US reviews I've read seemed to be in agreement with the UK critics (fantastic beginning, weak middle, great ending), but do you concur? I always find it interesting to hear the thoughts of foreign viewers of British TV, as they often appreciate things us natives take for granted, or find things to hate that we've grown to accept.

So, did you watch Sherlock every Sunday? Did you enjoy it? Or did it disappoint you? And do you have any thoughts on the pro's and con's of modern British drama, of which Sherlock's a prime example?

Did Martin Freeman turn down 'The Hobbit' for 'Sherlock'?

The strangest showbiz news comes courtesy of The Sun today, meaning it's probably not true, but a fun talking point. The tabloid claims that Martin Freeman was offered the lead role of Bilbo Baggins in Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings prequels based on The Hobbit, but turned it down to focus on Sherlock for the BBC. Can it be true?

A "source" old The Sun "it was one of the most difficult decisions of his career. MGM, who are making the film, only got a formal offer over in the last couple of weeks. It was too late for Martin because he had already signed up for another series of Sherlock. It was agonizing but he had no other choice. All the actors had to read four pages of script to camera which is being shown to Peter Jackson. He is looking for a hidden gem now Martin has ruled himself out of the job."

Do we really believe this? Would Martin Freeman turn down a seven-figure sum to play the lead in a multi-million dollar guaranteed blockbuster, that would potentially catapult him to the Hollywood A-list, just to play sidekick to Benedict Cumberbatch in another trio of Sherlock episodes? I can't see it myself. Surely it would be possible for Freeman to do both, with a little compassion from the BBC and MGM? But if this is true, I feel very sorry for Freeman if he was forced to refuse The Hobbit because of a BBC contract.

Sherlock's three-part return

Jay Hunt, Controller of BBC1, has spoken at the Edinburgh International Television Festival, where she confirmed the return of Sherlock for another run of three 90-minute episodes in 2011.

"When you bring a title back, you run the risk of being accused of being bereft of ideas. This embodies the development process at its very best -- we piloted it, saw it, thought it wasn't quite right -- the storytelling's not right, the duration's not right and we need to look at the casting -- so we changed it. It's bold, ambitious and strikes a fundamentally different note on Sunday night. Steven wanted to write them as 90 minute episodes, but that's the same next year. It's coming back as three 90-minute episodes."

This despite widespread feeling that shorter episodes and a longer run would be more appealing to viewers. From Hunt's quote, I assume the original unaired pilot was a more traditional hour but didn't work. If so, that's fine. I just hope the scripts don't feel as saggy in the middle next time. But it's a pity there won't be more than three episodes. I guess audiences will have to adjusting their expectations, and start treating Sherlock like ITV's occasional Poirot adventures.

Creators Steven Moffat & Mark Gatiss:

"We've been overwhelmed by the warmth of response to our new Sherlock Holmes and John Watson and can't wait to take them on three new adventures next year. There'll be baffling new puzzles, old friends and new enemies -– whether on two, or four legs. And we might well be seeing the cold master of logic and reason unexpectedly falling. But in love? Or over a precipice? Who can tell?"

Sherlock coming to PBS

Unsurprisingly, the BBC's Sherlock is coming to America on PBS, from 24 October. The modern-day update of the famous sleuth faces stiff competition against HBO's Boardwalk Empire (which I don't expect it to win), but I urge Americans reading to give the three-part Sherlock a whirl.

'SHERLOCK' 1.3 – "The Great Game"

[SPOILERS] Beyond a few quibbles, Mark Gatiss's "The Great Game" was a breathlessly assured finale to this three-part drama. It's just a pity Sherlock wasn't twice as long, if only to increase Moriarty's mystique before he made his on-screen debut as Sherlock's (Benedict Cumberbatch) archenemy, as his arrival felt slightly premature. Is there a risk this series has blown its load early? Isn't this akin to reintroducing the Daleks three episodes into Doctor Who's revival? Whatever your opinion, "The Great Game" was an early dessert of knotty narrative, delicious characterisation, spry action, and juicy thrills...

"The Great Game" was essentially Sherlock-meets-Die Hard With A Vengeance, with the despondent sleuth spurred into action by Lestrade (Rupert Graves) to foil a mad bomber who's fascinated by Sherlock's deductive reasoning and observational talent. Expectedly revealed to be his "number one fan" Moriarty, the bomber's plan involves kidnapping innocent people, outfitting them with explosives, and having them read out clues via phone to a particular mystery Sherlock must solve before an allotted period of time has passed... or else consign the kidnapped clue-readers to a fiery oblivion.

A handful of baffling conundrums were posed; involving a pair of old trainers with a connection to Sherlock's childhood, a daytime TV presenter killed by tetanus, a victim of infamous Prague hitman "The Golem", a counterfeit painting valued at £30 million, and the staged death of a car salesman -- together with an additional case brought to Sherlock's attention by his brother Mycroft (Mark Gatiss), about stolen MoD missile defense plans and a body found laying by the side of a railway track.

The episode was stuffed with incidents and the show's trademark deductions, making this episode feel like we essentially got half-a-dozen mini-adventures in one feature-length shebang. The addition of a ticking clock element elicited extra tension, as Sherlock raced around London trying to solve his opponent's mental obstacle course, although perhaps more could have been done to emphasize the against-the-clock element. Occasionally superimposing numbers to show the remaining hours left to crack each mystery worked fine, but I couldn't help feeling a constant ticking clock would have kept the anxiety simmering better.

This episode did a particularly fine job of drawing Sherlock as a self-confessed sociopath; more a violin-playing insect than a human being, at times. A man who overcomes boredom by taking potshots at his livingroom's wall with a gun, admits his ignorance of things beyond his immediate concerns (the Earth revolving around the Sun was news to him!), is often so engrossed in work that he has poor John (Martin Freeman) fish his phone from his own coat pocket, keeps a decapitated head in his fridge, and in one bravely contemptible scene manipulated a grieving woman by pretending to be an inconsolable friend (stirring tears in himself just to wheedle information from her). In less skilled hands Sherlock would already be TV's biggest bastard, but the joy of this series has been seeing such despicable traits in a person work in an oddly sympathetic way. Sherlock's a genius whose work feeds his ego, but he's clearly suffering from a type of autism, too.

It was great to see John Watson grow in this episode; encouraged to try and deduce things by Sherlock -- who couldn't help criticizing his friend's relatively feeble effort with a trainer. What works is the sense that John's having a positive effect on Sherlock, however marginally right now. We haven't had enough episodes to see the evolution clearly, but undoubtedly the intention is that two halves make a crime-fighting whole.

Naturally, there were some downsides to this jam-packed finale. The storyline didn't really need 90-minutes to tell its tale; so, consequently, a feeling of exhaustion seeped into the episode halfway through. There were simply so many crises for Sherlock to solve that they became a little overwhelming. If Moriarty had only concocted three devilish cases for his nemesis to solve, I think this story would have been fresher and tighter at an hour.

Paul McGuigan returned behind the camera and surpassed his own estimable work from "A Study In Pink", giving the production a richness and visual pizazz that other UK dramas must envy. I particularly enjoyed the planetarium brawl against The Golem (Sherlock's version of Jaws from the James Bond movies?), which was given a delirious feel via the room's video projector malfunctioning to create a strobing effect with a scratching audio track. The climactic sequence set in a spooky, rippling indoor swimming pool was also incredibly cinematic. Is there any chance McGuigan can be persuaded to lend his keen eye to Doctor Who?

Speaking of the climax, I'm sure the unveiling of Moriarty surprised most people watching. This being the brainchild of two writers famed for their involvement with Doctor Who, it was unavoidable we'd expect them to cast a celebrity in such an iconic role (a John Simm, Derek Jacobi, or Timothy Dalton, say). Instead, rather brilliantly, little-known Irish actor Andrew Scott took the role, keeping his native accent and playing literature's first supervillain as a highly intelligent, lyrical, cunning, and chillingly playful "consultant criminal". A performance that wasn't anything like I expected, but all the better for it.

As a miniseries, Sherlock proved itself an immediate critical success and a hit with audiences, so there will definitely be more from this update (hopefully in greater quantity). But I think it's worth remembering that Sherlock isn't perfect yet: the female characters were practically non-existent, and the few involved were given little to do. Giving John a girlfriend had great potential, but Sarah (Zoe Telfer) was sidelined for the majority of the two episodes she only briefly appeared in, and landlady Mrs Hudson (Una Stubbs) was nothing but a walking cliché. I also think D.I Lestrade was a sore disappointment, only adequately portrayed by Graves, and too obviously used as a plot-device (introducing Sherlock to each case, asking expositional questions at crime scenes). I'd love to see his character and back-story fleshed out in future.

Still, none of that can overshadow what's been a marvelous Sunday night treat that took the potentially embarrassing conceit of updating Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's characters and made it work, thanks to a combination of excellent casting, slick direction, and witty scripts. It's going to be tough waiting to see the resolution to the cliffhanger -- with Sherlock perhaps opting to defeat Moriarty by detonating a discarded booby-trapped vest (my money's on Sherlock and John surviving its explosion by diving into the nearby pool) -- but I'll definitely be watching to find out for sure...

It's elementary.

Asides

Sherlock finally whips out his iconic magnifying glass, which is naturally a stylish modern version resembling an extendable plastic slide.
I thought Mycroft worked better this week because Gatiss played him less broadly, but I hope he won't always be used in such a manipulative way for the benefit of the story. He's invaluable as someone who can puncture Sherlock's hard, insensitive shell... so I'd like to see him used in a more interesting way.
A simple idea, but having Moriarty's potential victims address Sherlock over a phone was incredibly haunting, and a great way to update the idea of Moriarty as someone who lurks in the shadows and doesn't get his hands dirty.
Is it realistic that John is allowed to blog about cases he solves with Sherlock? I know they're not active investigations now, but still.
You may recognize Andrew Scott as Paul McCartney from the recent BBC4 biopic Lennon Naked. But if you do, Sherlock has competition!
One aspect of this finale I enjoyed was how the reveal of Moriarty tested the audience's own observational skills, as Moriarty had actually already appeared earlier as Jim, the "gay friend" of the lab assistant who fancies Sherlock. Very clever. I certainly didn't recognize him, until Moriarty himself mentioned his earlier disguise.

WRITER: Mark Gatiss
DIRECTOR: Paul McGuigan
GUEST CAST: Rupert Graves, Una Stubbs, Zoe Telford, Louise Brealey, Andrew Scott, Vinette Robinson, Matthew Needham, Kemal Sylvester, San Shella, Deborah Moore, Laurence Crace, Nicholas Gadd, Caroline Trowbridge, Paul Alberson, Rita Davies, Di Botcher, John Sessions, Stefano Braschi, Jeany Spark, Alison Lintott, Haydn Gywnne, Doug Allen, John Lebar & Lynn Farleigh
TRANSMISSION: 1 August 2010 – BBC1/HD, 9PM

'SHERLOCK' 1.2 – "The Blind Banker"

[SPOILERS] The curious thing about "The Blind Banker" is that its mystery was far better than last week's relatively simplistic case, but the added intricacy didn't help matters. The plot almost seemed to get in the way, giving the adventure a heavier feel compared to last week's light-footedness. And while everything came together by the denouement, the story seemed to wander down some confusing alleys and, in the cold light of day, you have to wonder why the villains stuck to such a convoluted plan.

To explain; Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) and John (Martin Freeman) were summoned to investigate a break-in at a bank, where the intruder left a strange cipher in yellow spray on a painting. Sherlock deduced that the symbol was positioned to be seen by a bank employee called Van Coon, who was working late. Van Coon was soon found dead in his flat; supposedly a suicide because the doors were locked and there was no sign of forced entry, but Sherlock reasoned the banker was murdered because Van Coon was left-handed but the gunshot was to his right temple...

So began an investigation with Sherlock trying to locate and decode more cryptograms, which started appearing around London as a kind of warning to those intended to see them before they're killed. What do the signs mean? Who is painting them? Why does seeing them result in imminent death? And what links those people who appear to have been targeted?

It's perhaps unfair to go into more detail with a series like Sherlock, which relies so much on a sense of discovery to keep you watching and enjoying the sensation of a deepening mystery being carefully dissected and explained. Suffice to say, writer Stephen Thompson (The Whistleblowers) did a good job filling 90-minutes with fun deductions and observational genius, which is half the allure of a show like this. Simple things like Sherlock noticing a sodden Yellow Pages on a doorstep (indicating that the resident hasn't been home in three days, since it last rained) were beautifully sewn into the episode, surely encouraging the audience to improve their own powers perception.

Cumberbatch remains excellent in the title role; a pitch-perfect interpretation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's sleuth, whose lizardy performance would fit the traditional period costuming but doesn't look alien in a modern context. The character is particularly compelling because there's a comfort in knowing the scripts treat his genius seriously and won't let the logic stray too far into a "magical" realm. One thing that often tarnishes Doctor Who is how The Doctor can solve a crisis by spouting technobabble (because the writers have authority on the pseudo-science that fuels that show and can improvise the rules governing that show), whereas Sherlock takes place in our world the writers simply can't pull that trick. Sure, there are times when Sherlock's powers of observation become preternatural (noticing the details of a man's wrist-watch to deduce a recent holiday, say), but it's all within the realm of possibility.

With Cumberbatch continuing to excel, I was a little disappointed to find Martin Freeman lean on his Tim-from-The Office shtick more noticeably this week. "A Study In Pink" was filmed last in this three-part production, so maybe it took Freeman awhile to find the character of John Watson. He wasn't terrible here, he was perfectly fine, but there were undoubted more amusing moments that Freeman tackled in a manner that reminded me of his comedy past -- such as John's awkward date to a travelling Chinese circus with Sarah (Zoe Telford), a doctor at a local surgery he's joined, with Sherlock playing the oblivious gooseberry.

"The Blind Banker" (which owed a debt to the Holmes novella "The Dancing Men") was a disappointment considering the nimble strength of the first episode, but hardly a disastrous one. The mystery filled the time far better than last week's, but it was a pity this episode didn't give its characters more room to breathe. The John/Sarah relationship felt particularly curtailed, which was a pity because Telford's a good actress whose character will hopefully continue to be a source of mild irritation for Sherlock (who almost looked jealous he now had to share John's attention with her).

The direction from Euros Lyn (Doctor Who, Torchwood) was actually more kinetic than Paul McGuigan's last week, but less assured and inventive overall. The difference between a television director and a world-class film director (turning his hand to TV) was evident, but Lyn's work was still very good and I personally found the show's trick of superimposing words/images onto the screen (to signify Sherlock's thoughts) was employed better here.

Asides

I'm not sure I like those shots of London vistas that are shown to break-up scenes, mainly because half the screen is "smudged" and the action sped-up. Just aesthetically, I don't like the choice to give modern London an old painterly feel by blurring things.
You may recognize actress Zoe Telford from her recent guest-appearance in episode 4 of Ashes To Ashes' final series.
D.I Dimmock (Paul Chequer), the clichéd detective who doesn't trust Sherlock or believe his theories. I understand it's better for the drama if Sherlock faces official obstacles (rather than get a free pass with advocate D.I Lestrade), but what annoyed me here was Dimmock's sheer obstinacy when his own investigation was clearly achieving less than Sherlock's freelancing.
This marked the second appearance of actress Gemma Chan over the weekend; she also appeared in Friday's IT Crowd as a sexy Star Trek character.
C'mon, it's just inherently cool that Chinese gangsters calling themselves The Black Lotus were involved in this adventure. It gave everything a Tintin feel.
Does everyone own a copy of the London A-Z in the capital, then?

WRITER: Stephen Thompson
DIRECTOR: Euros Lyn
GUEST CAST: Una Stubbs, Louise Brealey, Zoe Telford, Paul Chequer & Gemma Chan
TRANSMISSION: 1 August 2010 – BBC1, 8.30PM / BBCHD, 9.30PM

'SHERLOCK' 1.1 - "A Study In Pink"

[SPOILERS] Conceived during train journeys while working on Doctor Who, Sherlock is a modern update of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 19th-century detective adventures, from Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss, writers whose affection for Victoriana is clear and evident. Gatiss's work is often inspired or set during the Industrial Age, while his first Who script ("The Unquiet Dead") featured that century's greatest novelist, Charles Dickens. Moffat's oeuvre is less historical in nature, although he recently wrote the BBC miniseries Jekyll, a contemporary sequel to Robert Louis Stevenson's 1886 novella "The Strange Case Of Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde". A fine writing partnership to tackle the world's most famous crime-fighting duo, then.

Benedict Cumberbatch headlines as Sherlock, a cadaverous young man with flowing locks, prompting superficial physical comparisons to Matt Smith's look as The Doctor, compounded by the noted similarities in both character's intelligence and poise. Fortunately, delineation is clear in how Sherlock's a self-proclaimed "high-functioning sociopath" with a solemn, vaguely unsettling demeanour that only occasionally cracks into a lilting grin if a particularly baffling mystery presents itself.

"A Study In Pink" is a loose remake of Conan Doyle's "A Study In Scarlet" novella (so the case is easily cracked by Holmes bookworms), although Moffat's script offers original delights of its own. Half the fun is simply seeing how the source material's been updated, with invalided army soldier Dr. John Watson (Martin Freeman) back in London with post-traumatic stress disorder (and a psychosomatic limp), and finding himself flat-sharing with the titular sleuth. John forms a connection with Sherlock rather quickly, partly because he's the first man to actively marvel at this consultant detective's powers of deduction, after accompanying him to the scene of a crime: a fourth suspicious suicide that Sherlock believes is actually the handiwork of a serial killer.

The police treat Sherlock as a kind of annoying freak, occasionally called in by D.I Lestrade (Rupert Graves) as a last resort, although Lestrade knows that Sherlock's genius shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. As a raging egomaniac, John's vocal astonishment as Sherlock's abilities endears him to his waspish flatmate and, given John's profession, Sherlock's likewise keen to have a trusted doctor be his professional partner and, possibly, first real friend?

I had my doubts about Freeman in this role, as the actor often trots out mild variations on his character Tim from The Office, but he actually finds some depth and quiet dignity as John Watson which was a welcome surprise. I just don't believe in him as a military man. The dynamic between Freeman and Cumberbatch is at an embryonic stage right now, but there are plenty of signs the two actors will make a compelling odd couple. Cumberbatch does a startlingly good job making Sherlock amusingly exasperating, but not totally insufferable, and while the update refuses to give Sherlock a drug addiction (nicotine patches replace the iconic pipe, there's no sign of any opium), it's made clear that his drug is his work. He has a frightening, almost pathological need to be proven right, which comes to the fore in the climax over correctly deriving a poisoned pill from a 50/50 chance.

Sherlock also benefitted enormously from the assured direction of Paul McGuigan (Gangster No. 1, Lucky Number Slevin), whose work on the big-screen undoubtedly helped give this TV production a snap and style we rarely see on the small-screen. I particularly liked his cinematic eye in chopping the screen up into thirds, and the use of transitional swipes between scenes. There was also an inventive way to visualize texting, with phone messages being superimposed over the on-screen action. A simple but very effective device. The only mild concern was how words likewise appeared to show Sherlock's mental thought processes while examining a corpse, partly because it felt unnecessary because he vocalized his thoughts afterwards anyway. Hopefully the series will refine this idea, as it's an interesting way to put the viewer into Sherlock's mindspace, in principle.

Overall, Sherlock launched with an abundance of wit and dynamism from its two compelling leads, each biting into the succulent script from Moffat's pen -- which performed the same trick as his Jekyll miniseries, in presenting an old idea in a fresh way that doesn't feel ridiculous. Connoisseurs of the great detective will breathe a sigh of relief that the characterisation and deductive reasoning is intact, while newcomers will soak up what's essentially a great crime mystery with two mismatched friends at its core.

Asides

I wonder if accepting this role has removed Cumberbatch from inheriting the TARDIS one day, at least while Doctor Who's in Moffat's hands and both shows are on-air together. If it's indeed unlikely because of certain conflicts, wouldn't Cumberbatch make a great Master? There are clearly echoes of Smith's Doctor in his features and style, which would stick to the casting of John Simm as an intentional "dark twin" to mirror David Tennant's performance. To fan the flames of gossip, Cumberbatch has already hinted that he may appear in a multi-part Who storyline soon.
If you've ever doubted Sherlock Holmes's influence on modern-day crime shows, it was only a few months ago that Luther dealt with the idea of a taxi driving serial killer, too.
Three 90-minute adventures may equal a six-part regular miniseries, but that still feels annoyingly brief. Hopefully success will ensure a longer run if (when?) the show returns.
How great was the ending between Sherlock and the killer, over two bottles of pills? That scene in itself was responsible for half-a-star in my rating.
I was slightly surprised they've already setup the presence of Moriarty (Sherlock's "fan"), mainly because that feels like a trump card they'd hold in reserve for awhile. It was fun watching the script play with expectations regarding Moriarty and Mark Gatiss's character, who was amusingly revealed to be Sherlock's worrisome brother Mycroft. I didn't expect co-creator Gatiss to have gifted himself the arch-enemy role, but the deception still worked nicely.

WRITER: Steven Moffat
DIRECTOR: Paul McGuigan
CAST: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Una Stubbs, Rupert Graves, Louise Brealey, Vinette Robinson, Phil Davis & Mark Gatiss.
TRANSMISSION: 25 July 2010 - BBC1/HD, 9PM

Trailer: Sherlock

I've heard good things about Sherlock already, but here comes a sorely belated trailer for the modern-day update, which starts this Sunday 25 July (BBC1, 9pm). Are you sold yet? Below you can watch a two-minute interview with creators Mark Gatiss (The League Of Gentlemen, Crooked House) and Steven Moffat (Coupling, Doctor Who)...

BBC/PBS partnership: Sherlock; Upstairs, Downstairs; Aurelio Zen

The BBC and PBS Masterpiece Theater are joining forces on three big new dramas. First up is the eagerly-awaited Sherlock Holmes update set in modern times. The new four-part series started filming on 19 January 2010, with Benedict Cumberbatch (Atonement) playing the contemporary Sherlock Holmes and Martin Freeman (The Office) as his Dr. Watson -- recently returned from Afghanistan.

Rupert Graves co-stars as Inspector Lestrade and Una Stubbs will play Mrs. Hudson. The pilot is an hour-long, but the remaining three episodes will be 90-minutes each. This reinvention of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's iconic sleuth has been created by Mark Gatiss (League Of Gentlemen, Doctor Who) and Steven Moffat (Doctor Who, Coupling). If Sherlock proves a success, Moffat has already said he'll have to take a backseat because of his commitment to Doctor Who.

A remake of classic '70s drama Upstairs, Downstairs (which won seven Emmys) about the class divisions in a British mansion just prior to WWII, has also been announced. There will also be an adaptation of three Aurelio Zen novels written by Michael Dibden, starring Rufus Sewell as the eponymous Italian detective. It comes from Left Bank Pictures, the same production company who gave us Swedish detective series Wallander with Kenneth Branagh, and will be shot on location in Italy.

These three shows are expected to air in 2010/11.

Blog Archive