Monday, January 02, 2017

The new Sherlock episode was obligatory viewing for myself & the Cumberbitch of a younger Wafflette. However ... decent as it was there's that nagging feeling developing into a more tangible wince that ... well ... it's lost the plot.

Thankfully, there was no grating Graham Norton Moriarty or the irritating 'and-then-I-woke-up-and-it-was-all-a-dream' type of reframing (although the last five minutes seemed to promise that). The problem lies in the increasing Soap Operatics - as if we bloody cared about Watson and his family! No, really, not interesting. God knows why Mark Gatiss has decided to foreground this aspect of the story - pressure from the BBC to make it more 'audience friendly'? A lack of confidence in spinning true suspense & criminal deviousness? The scathing put downs from Sherlock drying up?

Frankly it's all becoming a bit maudlin - ironically, the very tendency that would prompt a dismissive "dreary, dreary" riposte from Holmes.

Over lunch we agreed that the first series was head and shoulders better. Why? A case per episode. Just like the books. Sufficient sparring between Sherlock, Watson and the police plus the occasional and truly disquieting appearance of Mycroft. Wonderful. (Actually, the younger Wafflette admitted that she was beginning to think Mycroft was starting to eclipse Holmes ... Gatiss consciously or not upstaging his star. Oh dear ...)

In report writing mode as I am, let's give this Sherlock Holmes a B minus/ C plus? With a stern recommendation to go back to basics.

No comments:

It seems my crystal ball was not so grubby ... ... resisting the temptation to say "told you so".