What's up, Sherlock?

Let’s talk about Sherlock. Why not? It’s March, and season 3 of Sherlock aired nearly two months ago. I’m guessing that just about everyone who is interested has already seen it, and it’s a show that certainly fits in with this blog’s themes. And I have been reading a lot of Sherlock Holmes stories lately – all in the name of science, I assure you. But something was very odd about season 3 of Sherlock. Seasons 1 and 2 generally got praise from both critics and audiences. People called the plotting clever (though I disagree about that, especially in regards to season 1), people loved Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, people loved the visual flairs that showcased Sherlock’s deductive prowess, people found the writing witty, and in general, the show was enjoyed by most people.

But something odd happened when season 3 aired. It split viewers right down the middle. Half of the audience absolutely loved what they saw, singing Hosannas to the great Cumberbatch, Freeman, and Moffat as the credits rolled. But the other half of the audience couldn’t stand it, presumably booing and throwing popcorn at the screen. Either way, both of these halves have been very vocal about their like or dislike, whatever the case. For every person who called The Signs of Three the best episode of Sherlock, there was another person only too willing to demonstrate just how that episode turned Sherlock into a complete buffoon. Why all the division? Just where did Sherlock go wrong?

Sherlock: The Hounds of Baskerville

As The Hounds of Baskerville opens, Sherlock Holmes is bored. He is pining for a proper case, when a man named Henry Knight drops in for a visit. As a young boy, he claims, he witnessed his father getting ripped apart by a monstrous hound on Dartmoor. He ran away in terror, although no corpse was ever found. After years of therapy, he has returned to the crime scene… but this does nothing to quell his terrors. Although Sherlock is initially sceptical, he becomes very interested after his visitor tells him, “Mr. Holmes, they were the footsteps of a gigantic hound!”

Thus, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are on the case, going to Dartmoor. There, they get onto the scent of top-secret military experiments at a place called Baskerville. And I won’t say any more about the plot. The writer is Mark Gatiss, who previously penned the somewhat-disastrous The Great Game. (One of these days I’ll watch it again and give it a proper review to voice all my issues with that episode.) However, this time Mark Gatiss outdoes himself. The Hounds of Baskerville, inspired by the infamous The Hound of the Baskervilles, is a pure delight from start to finish.

Sherlock: A Scandal in Belgravia

For those who are not on board, as episode three of Sherlock (The Great Game) concluded, Holmes and Watson found themselves facing off against the dastardly Jim Moriarty, a character who seemed to be trying to out-do all the Bond villains in terms of being over-the-top and silly. Moriarty threatened to have them killed, only for Holmes to threaten to blow them all up. Just as the confrontation is about to climax, the credits rolled, leaving viewers to wonder how Holmes would get out of this scrape in one piece.

Oh no, you didn't!

Now comes A Scandal in Belgravia, which resumes from the point at which The Great Game left off… and thank your lucky stars, because Steven Moffat takes over the screenwriting! The series having written itself into a corner with a terrible Moriarty, Moffat takes the character off screen as soon as possible. And he does this with a sort of confidence— at this point, I still didn’t like Moriarty one bit. He was still every bit as unthreatening and laughable. But the show seemed to know where it wanted to go with this character. It seemed to have some sort of a purpose in mind. Moriarty only makes a handful of appearances in this episode and although it doesn’t really make him threatening, it does lead to something special in the third episode. But I’m getting ahead of myself here.

Sherlock: The Game's Afoot!

I was very interested by Season One of the BBC’s Sherlock. The concept was simple: transpose the Sherlock Holmes tales to modern day. Sherlock Holmes now uses not only his remarkable deductive prowess, but he also fall back on the Internet, texting, GPS technology, webcams, etc. Played with admirable gusto by Benedict Cumberbatch, the character of Sherlock felt authentic— if Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had written the tales in modern day, this is the kind of character he’d come up with. He is a socially awkward genius who cannot understand why people around him see the same things but do not observe.

Martin Freeman played Dr. Watson, and in my opinion, he’s the best of them all. He blows Nigel Bruce out of the water. David Burke and Edward Hardwicke have nothing on him. He captures everything that made Watson great, and he manages never to look like an idiot. Holmes’ deductions are truly astounding, and Watson’s admiration feels very genuine without these moments feeling contrived. There is never a situation where Watson exclaims in surprise: “But Holmes, how on earth did you know that the only sinister-looking character with a collection of machetes was the one who decapitated Lord Bathtub?” Watson is an intelligent man—after all, he’s a doctor—but his intellect doesn’t come close to Holmes’. His life with Sherlock gives him stimulation in many ways and he develops a true friendship with the man.

That being said, Series One had a lot of problems with it. The first episode, A Study in Pink, was a very clever one written by Steven Moffat, with a lot of witty in-jokes for the Sherlockians. The plot was nicely retooled to make it fit into a modern-day setting. Moriarty was suitably hinted at. The episode was exciting. The only thing really wrong with it was the all-too easy ending, where Watson apparently learns (albeit briefly) how to read people’s minds.

It was all downhill from there. Episode Two, The Blind Banker, was penned by Steve Thompson, and was laughably silly. It took several pages from the Edgar Wallace playbook, most notably in the inclusion of Sinister Chinamen, as every Chinese character except one is part of an evil gang. It’s understandable, if not acceptable, to see such stereotypes in Edgar Wallace, but it felt shockingly out of place in modern day. But the episode was just barely fun enough, particularly in its finale with the unnecessarily-slow-moving-dipping-device-of-death.

Episode Three, penned by Mark Gatiss, was the worst of the lot. Entitled The Great Game, it saw Sherlock confronted with multiple puzzles, but the episode was frankly laughable. The plot never held water, and it is completely contrived from start to finish. You’re always aware of the plot’s flimsy artificiality, you’re never drawn into the story. I could go into detail about the plot's loopholes, but I will save that for a possible future review. But in the final scenes, we finally meet Moriarty, and it’s bad. Gatiss takes a very bad joke and streeeeeeeeeetches it out into what feels like infinity. The series basically wrote itself into a corner—it has the silliest, most laughable, and most unthreatening incarnation of Moriarty I’d ever seen. Its stories no longer held water. The only thing left in its favour was a fascinating premise and excellent acting from Cumberbatch and Freeman.

So I was sceptical for Series 2… Would the series continue its downwards spiral, or would it snap to attention and break the vicious cycle? Only time would tell… and that’s what I intend to do in the upcoming days by reviewing all three of the episodes from series 2. I hope you will all join me for this.