(Note: Spoiler Free)
Okay, so the finale of the fourth series of Sherlock, The Final Problem, was much better than the episodes which preceded it, but there's still some strange narrative choices going on.
First of all, it was refreshing to see an episode which for the most part was very contained, with three of the main characters locked in a room (well, a number of them), trying to solve puzzles while faced with terrible choices. The first act started fairly well, with the cliffhanger from last week being resolved in the way I had expected, followed by some exposition about the secret Holmes sister before a cataclysm occurs. The next two thirds of the episode form a tense, brilliantly written thriller of Sherlock attempting to solve the mysteries of his past while also trying to deduce the endgame Eurus Holmes has in mind for him.
The positive things in this episode are numerous. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman still excel in roles they have made their own, as does Mark Gatiss as Mycroft. Here we saw a more vulnerable side to Sherlock's older, reptilian-hearted brother which was quite refreshing. There are also great if small performances from Una Stubbs as Mrs Hudson and Louise Brealey as Molly Hooper. The key performance is that of Sian Brooke as Eurus, who dominates much of the episode with a chillingly emotionless candour. She has been separated from any social contact for most of her life and as a result has become colour-blind to morality. Eurus sees the world through the same grey lens, which is a great contrast to the devilish psychopathy of Moriarty in earlier seasons.
Speaking of Moriarty, the mystery about him which has persisted since the end of His Last Vow is resolved (after a fashion). I won't spoil anything, but I found the scenes concerning his fate to be a welcome diversion, although at times it was hard to tell if the events of this episode were really all part of Moriarty's posthumous plan.
If there's one thing Sherlock does right, it's the cinematography and set-design. The main location for this episode is a terrifically designed labyrinth full of psychological torture. The way shots are set up to illuminate things not seen at first is great, as is the ever-present pop-up deduction text. While I felt this had started to outstay its welcome a bit this series, it is particularly well done when we reach this story's eventual conclusion.
Despite the aforementioned pluses, there are still a number of things a bit off about this series finale. For one, Eurus, despite being intriguing as a character, at times resembles a character out of a Luc Besson film with her super-intellect and being incarcerated in a secret facility. One particular revelation about her was initially a welcome surprise, but upon closer inspection small details lead to further technical questions which are unanswered. Also the ending shows a character making a choice which I didn't quite believe given the revelations earlier in the episode.
Then we come to the ending itself, which while I liked as a standalone scene, came across like a bizarre summing up of what the episode means for the future of Sherlock. Since I'm writing this so soon after watching it I might be overlooking something. Hopefully I will find it out, or maybe someone will be kind enough to enlighten me.
So guys, that's pretty much all I have to say at present regarding The Final Problem. I may do a spoiler-filled take on this post at some point in the future. If you saw the series finale of Sherlock, what was your take on it? Good or bad, we have the promise of another series on the horizon. Now to settle in for another two-year wait.
Showing posts with label steven moffat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label steven moffat. Show all posts
Sunday, 15 January 2017
Tuesday, 10 January 2017
The Tiger Poet vs. Sherlock
(Warning: Spoilers Ahead.)
What is going on with Sherlock at the moment?
Don't get me wrong, I've been watching Sherlock since it debuted back in 2010, and I still think it's a terrific show with great acting by Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, great camerawork, great atmosphere and mostly great everything. However one thing has been lacking of late, especially in recent years, and that is consistently great writing.
The first two series of Sherlock are among the most brilliant to have graced British television.
It cleverly brought the creations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle into the 21st century with a host of novel approaches to adapting the source material. It was also great to see a modern Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson solving crimes in London with the ever-present threat of Jim Moriarty lurking in the background. Then The Reichenbach Fall happened in 2012, and the internet went mad. Numerous theories by fans and news sites tried to crack the mystery of how Holmes survived his fall from the roof of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Come the premier of Series 3 in 2013, we were all waiting to see how the writing partnership of Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss and Stephen Thompson would continue with the show.
The Empty Hearse was where the warning signs first appeared. Although the episode was still brilliant in many regards, there was the sense that the writers had let success get the better of them, with the mystery never properly explained, the character of Moriarty somewhat deflated, and the inclusion of one too-many nods towards the fan-base. Then came The Sign of Three, which played out more like a Christmas or Comic Relief special, and demonstrated the shift from individual cases to overarching series-long plots. His Last Vow was a great ending to the series, with a terrific villain in Charles Augustus Magnussen and with more development given to Mary Watson as a character. Then a new twist appeared and we had to wait another couple of years.
I still don't know what to think about The Abominable Bride. It was in many ways an admirable attempt to try a meta-storytelling approach with Sherlock, but it turned out to be too meta and self-indulgent than necessary. Now we arrive at the new series, and these problems are still present. It's not that the episodes themselves are not well produced, because they are still a cut above most others on TV, it's just that Moffat and Gatiss appear to be making the show far more convoluted than it needs to be. That's not saying that Sherlock should be completely easy to follow, but now it just feels like the writers are trying to prove to the audience how clever they are.
The Six Thatchers started off well enough, with an intriguing initial case, but the moment the old plotline of Mary's past surfaces the whole thing is thrown for a loop. Sherlock Holmes doesn't deduce too much; instead we are treated to a story of special agents and governmental betrayal like something out of the Bourne films. I had no problem with Sherlock besting a special forces agent in combat (as if one is familiar with the Conan Doyle stories, it's completely in his character), but I did have a problem with the great detective running out of chances to do some detecting.
I'm pleased to say I liked The Lying Detective a bit more, as it presented a clever adaptation of a Conan Doyle story which is quite difficult to adapt, and also because Sherlock had a lot more deducing to do. However the same problems of over-complication are still there, and the sense that the writers are trying too hard is difficult to escape. I never quite believed that Culverton Smith's friends would be so willing to hear his murderous confessions before allowing their memories to be altered, and as for the episode's cliffhanger? I'm not exactly worried about Sherlock and Mycroft's secret sister killing John because I know we've still got one episode to go. It was tense enough to learn the identity of the secret Holmes sibling; it didn't need a gunshot.
Still, I'm still liking Sherlock very much. Hopefully many questions I have now will be answered in the final episode next week, in particular if the much-debated potential return of Moriarty will ever get some definite payoff. Ultimately, Sherlock is still a terrific show, but let's hope the writers don't get ahead of themselves on this one.
What is going on with Sherlock at the moment?
Don't get me wrong, I've been watching Sherlock since it debuted back in 2010, and I still think it's a terrific show with great acting by Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, great camerawork, great atmosphere and mostly great everything. However one thing has been lacking of late, especially in recent years, and that is consistently great writing.
The first two series of Sherlock are among the most brilliant to have graced British television.
It cleverly brought the creations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle into the 21st century with a host of novel approaches to adapting the source material. It was also great to see a modern Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson solving crimes in London with the ever-present threat of Jim Moriarty lurking in the background. Then The Reichenbach Fall happened in 2012, and the internet went mad. Numerous theories by fans and news sites tried to crack the mystery of how Holmes survived his fall from the roof of St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Come the premier of Series 3 in 2013, we were all waiting to see how the writing partnership of Steven Moffat, Mark Gatiss and Stephen Thompson would continue with the show.
The Empty Hearse was where the warning signs first appeared. Although the episode was still brilliant in many regards, there was the sense that the writers had let success get the better of them, with the mystery never properly explained, the character of Moriarty somewhat deflated, and the inclusion of one too-many nods towards the fan-base. Then came The Sign of Three, which played out more like a Christmas or Comic Relief special, and demonstrated the shift from individual cases to overarching series-long plots. His Last Vow was a great ending to the series, with a terrific villain in Charles Augustus Magnussen and with more development given to Mary Watson as a character. Then a new twist appeared and we had to wait another couple of years.
I still don't know what to think about The Abominable Bride. It was in many ways an admirable attempt to try a meta-storytelling approach with Sherlock, but it turned out to be too meta and self-indulgent than necessary. Now we arrive at the new series, and these problems are still present. It's not that the episodes themselves are not well produced, because they are still a cut above most others on TV, it's just that Moffat and Gatiss appear to be making the show far more convoluted than it needs to be. That's not saying that Sherlock should be completely easy to follow, but now it just feels like the writers are trying to prove to the audience how clever they are.
The Six Thatchers started off well enough, with an intriguing initial case, but the moment the old plotline of Mary's past surfaces the whole thing is thrown for a loop. Sherlock Holmes doesn't deduce too much; instead we are treated to a story of special agents and governmental betrayal like something out of the Bourne films. I had no problem with Sherlock besting a special forces agent in combat (as if one is familiar with the Conan Doyle stories, it's completely in his character), but I did have a problem with the great detective running out of chances to do some detecting.
I'm pleased to say I liked The Lying Detective a bit more, as it presented a clever adaptation of a Conan Doyle story which is quite difficult to adapt, and also because Sherlock had a lot more deducing to do. However the same problems of over-complication are still there, and the sense that the writers are trying too hard is difficult to escape. I never quite believed that Culverton Smith's friends would be so willing to hear his murderous confessions before allowing their memories to be altered, and as for the episode's cliffhanger? I'm not exactly worried about Sherlock and Mycroft's secret sister killing John because I know we've still got one episode to go. It was tense enough to learn the identity of the secret Holmes sibling; it didn't need a gunshot.
Still, I'm still liking Sherlock very much. Hopefully many questions I have now will be answered in the final episode next week, in particular if the much-debated potential return of Moriarty will ever get some definite payoff. Ultimately, Sherlock is still a terrific show, but let's hope the writers don't get ahead of themselves on this one.
Monday, 13 October 2014
The Tiger Poet vs. Doctor Who
My first exposure to the global phenomenon that is Doctor Who was back in 2005. I had heard it mentioned in passing before, but the show's revival was the first time I ever watched an episode. I followed it on and off during the first two series, and saw hardly any of the third. In 2008, I watched The Fires of Pompeii, the second episode of the fourth series, and have stuck with it ever since.
There are enough articles about Doctor Who to warrant a planet-sized database, so what can mine bring to the table? Well, I can start with my impression of why it is such a cultural sensation. Much of its success can be traced back to infinite possibilities of travelling in the TARDIS. By having a time machine that can travel to any point in history and anywhere in the universe, the amount of stories that writers can tell is endless. As the main protagonist, the character of the Doctor is a source of endless fascination due to his alien quirkiness and sense of ethereal mystery. This combination served the show tremendously in its original run, and continues to work just as well today.
Of course, there are many facets to the success of Doctor Who, including the imaginative storylines, memorable monsters, and the ever-expanding list of great companions. To try and explain how each of them contributes to the show would span several blog posts. So, to shorten the subject somewhat, allow me to lay out my own thoughts on the series' current state and its future.
Currently Doctor Who is a stronger position that it ever has been, in no small part due to the efforts of executive producers Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat. However, both of these writers have sparked debate and in some cases controversy. Davies has been critics for the lack of visits to alien planets, constant use of deux-ex-machina endings, the embellishment of the Doctor as a saviour-figure, and persistent sentimentality. Moffat on the other hand has been charged with misogyny, homophobia and an over-reliance on complex story arcs that span several series. In general, most of the hatred from ardent fans seems to be directed at Moffat as of late, but why?
I have sometimes been involved in discussions about Doctor Who with various individuals. Most of them seem to dislike the way the show has gone after Moffat took control and Matt Smith became the Doctor. Re-watching some of Smith's episodes, I can see why to a certain extent. His first series was consistently good, apart from a finale that was too complex for its own good. In following series, flaws such as lack of development for supporting characters and the show trying too hard to be clever became more prominent, especially in the latter half of the seventh series.
One problem I've always had with the newer series is that the villains are often lacking in personality, or that there is sometimes no villain at all. Episodes such as The Big Bang, The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe are testament to this. Even The Day of the Doctor, the fiftieth anniversary special, had this problem to a certain extent. The villains of Moffat's run, including the Silence, Madame Kovarian, the Great Intelligence and most recently Missy, are all good attempts at memorable villainy but are squandered by a lack of characterisation.
That last mention of Missy leads me nicely to the current series with Peter Capaldi as the Doctor. Some of my colleagues have been full of praise for the darker tone, the focus on character development and the variety of new monsters on display. Others have been quite insistent in their criticisms, specifically of the continued time travel complexity, the overuse of the phrase "most dangerous (inset noun here) in the universe" and the kid-friendly resolutions to most of the episodes. I agree with all of these points, good and bad, but any suggestion that Doctor Who is on its way out is a highly miscalculated one.
To test the quality of Doctor Who as it stands, we need to weight until the end of the eighth series so that we can judge it as a whole. With this in mind, I intend to start a Doctor Who tend (if that's what people call it), in which I analyse the newest episodes for the reader's cynical enjoyment. Until then, all I can look forward to are presentations, poetry, and continued university deadlines.
There are enough articles about Doctor Who to warrant a planet-sized database, so what can mine bring to the table? Well, I can start with my impression of why it is such a cultural sensation. Much of its success can be traced back to infinite possibilities of travelling in the TARDIS. By having a time machine that can travel to any point in history and anywhere in the universe, the amount of stories that writers can tell is endless. As the main protagonist, the character of the Doctor is a source of endless fascination due to his alien quirkiness and sense of ethereal mystery. This combination served the show tremendously in its original run, and continues to work just as well today.
Of course, there are many facets to the success of Doctor Who, including the imaginative storylines, memorable monsters, and the ever-expanding list of great companions. To try and explain how each of them contributes to the show would span several blog posts. So, to shorten the subject somewhat, allow me to lay out my own thoughts on the series' current state and its future.
Currently Doctor Who is a stronger position that it ever has been, in no small part due to the efforts of executive producers Russell T Davies and Steven Moffat. However, both of these writers have sparked debate and in some cases controversy. Davies has been critics for the lack of visits to alien planets, constant use of deux-ex-machina endings, the embellishment of the Doctor as a saviour-figure, and persistent sentimentality. Moffat on the other hand has been charged with misogyny, homophobia and an over-reliance on complex story arcs that span several series. In general, most of the hatred from ardent fans seems to be directed at Moffat as of late, but why?
I have sometimes been involved in discussions about Doctor Who with various individuals. Most of them seem to dislike the way the show has gone after Moffat took control and Matt Smith became the Doctor. Re-watching some of Smith's episodes, I can see why to a certain extent. His first series was consistently good, apart from a finale that was too complex for its own good. In following series, flaws such as lack of development for supporting characters and the show trying too hard to be clever became more prominent, especially in the latter half of the seventh series.
One problem I've always had with the newer series is that the villains are often lacking in personality, or that there is sometimes no villain at all. Episodes such as The Big Bang, The Doctor, the Widow and the Wardrobe are testament to this. Even The Day of the Doctor, the fiftieth anniversary special, had this problem to a certain extent. The villains of Moffat's run, including the Silence, Madame Kovarian, the Great Intelligence and most recently Missy, are all good attempts at memorable villainy but are squandered by a lack of characterisation.
That last mention of Missy leads me nicely to the current series with Peter Capaldi as the Doctor. Some of my colleagues have been full of praise for the darker tone, the focus on character development and the variety of new monsters on display. Others have been quite insistent in their criticisms, specifically of the continued time travel complexity, the overuse of the phrase "most dangerous (inset noun here) in the universe" and the kid-friendly resolutions to most of the episodes. I agree with all of these points, good and bad, but any suggestion that Doctor Who is on its way out is a highly miscalculated one.
To test the quality of Doctor Who as it stands, we need to weight until the end of the eighth series so that we can judge it as a whole. With this in mind, I intend to start a Doctor Who tend (if that's what people call it), in which I analyse the newest episodes for the reader's cynical enjoyment. Until then, all I can look forward to are presentations, poetry, and continued university deadlines.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)