But reset in today's context, I find I accept the character because it is done so well and offers more punch, which is needed in practical terms because of the assumptions of the show. Sherlock: The Abominable Bride is a (LSD) trip back in time into the 1890s when the Sherlock Holmes stories were originally penned by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.Heretofore, the three Sherlock seasons have taken place in a modern setting. The question of your concerns about Holmes's character interpretation are the most serious problem, R30, and I share them as far as it represents a difference between the show's Holmes and the canonical character. Meaning I excused the episode and even feel that they production team may have earned some of their self-congratulatory mirror gazing. Otherwise I would not be able to tolerate Michelangelo, Wagner, Orson Welles or Roman architecture. I try not to let my exuberant and crazed distaste at others' personal faults color my critical judgment. However, the show is founded on audacity, which permits the camp, the smartness, the silliness, the stabbing truths (occasionally) to show through. I think a personal pique may be confusing the effects of smugness with the dangers of audacity. R28, of course, is connecting his or her assumptions about Moffat's smugness with certain aspects of the show. However, Ive decided I dont normally watch Sherlock to solve the mysteries I watch it to see the process behind how he solves it. I thought showing Marys struggle with 'keeping her place' worked well to show this kind of unhappiness (Mollys part, too). If not in the world of semi-serious Sherlockians, a category in which I join you, R30. It felt too unlikely, too ridiculous, too much. My point is that the show as a one-off holiday episode was successful on its own terms within the "world" of the series. Self-indulgence, which I excused, and self-congratulations, which precedes, are not the same thing, of course.
0 kommentar(er)
