Not the season premiere I expected | a review of Sherlock

The only thing worse than disappointment in one of your favorite shows is disappointment before the show even begins.

After nearly six months of waiting, I was all ready to watch the second season premiere of Sherlock – glass of prosecco in hand – when my television abruptly dropped all channels due to a “weak signal.” Despite feverish attempts at restoring the signal, I couldn’t get service to OPB for another 25 minutes. (And only after I followed IT Crowd protocol by turning everything off and back on again.)

Needless to say, I entered the second season of Sherlock thoroughly disoriented. There was a woman in a robe (presumably Irene Adler) and Sherlock in a sparsely furnished room with a safe, a mobile phone, and a couple snarly Americans. It took another fifteen minutes to figure out what the heck was going on.

I have very mixed feelings about “A Scandal in Bohemia.” I really enjoy Steven Moffat’s work; I adore Benedict Cumberbatch’s and Martin Freeman’s acting. Yet “Bohemia” failed to capture the same level of cleverness as the first season. It didn’t crackle and rush like the first three episodes. It wasn’t a bad episode; I just didn’t love it. The puzzle or mystery plot of “Bohemia” seemed to serve more as an apparatus upon which to hang the “love” story between Sherlock and Irene Adler.

(And yes, I use the phrase “love story” loosely.)

It was intriguing to see Sherlock flummoxed by a woman. It revealed an emotional depth to him that had been hinted at before but not examined. Still…I liked the sexually ambiguous Sherlock from the first season. His romantic/emotional attachment to Irene felt wrong somehow. Like a betrayal unto himself. (My own interpretation. I’m sure others feel differently.)

And what about Irene Adler? I’m not sure about her either. I really like her strength and intelligence, yet did anyone else find her to be too much? As though we were hit over the head with her wit and schemes and mystery? If Irene were so intelligent – rivaling Sherlock – why did she need to consult Moriarty? Why did she have to fall in love with Sherlock? (Well, to be fair, who wouldn’t?) It felt a little cliche for “the only woman to beat Sherlock Holmes” to succomb to sentiment in the end.

I need to watch this episode again. This time in its entirety. Maybe I’ll like it more the second time around. What did you think? Sound off below!

 

 

dear CBS, here’s a suggestion: come up with your own ideas

This past week CBS announced that it had cast Jonny Lee Miller as its Sherlock Holmes for the pilot of the newly ordered series Elementary, a modern retelling of Sherlock.

If you’re thinking, Wait hasn’t the BBC already done that? The answer is a resounding yes. The enormously successful – and brilliant – BBC Sherlock series is co-created by Steven Moffat (executive producer of the current Doctor Who series) and Mark Gatiss. Sherlock is played by the mesmerizing Benedict Cumberbatch, joined by Martin Freeman as Watson. I will not go into the high-quality and stellar writing of this series. I’ll save that for another time – when PBS brings over the second season of Sherlock to American television.

Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Watson (Martin Freeman) in BBC's 'Sherlock'

What really gets me upset about CBS’s ridiculously named Elementary is that is another example in a long line of US remakes of UK shows. While Great Britain imports several US television shows, the US rarely airs original British programming (save for PBS and BBC America, the second of which for obvious reasons). I understand that television “translations” or remakes is a complex topic and includes such issues as import and copyright laws, syndication rights, cultural differences, the very notion of “original,” and money. With that disclaimer in place, allow me the space to vent.

Why this discrepancy? Why do U.S. networks believe that American viewers will not like or understand (!) original British programs? The overwhelming recent popularity of Downton Abbey and Doctor Who (and to a lesser extent The Hour) should prove that there is a robust appetite for British programming.

Moreover, when the US remakes UK shows they are often terrible. They usually fail. Save for the successful The Office, the following US remakes were cancelled shortly after the premiere (or even before it even aired): Prime Suspect, Life on Mars, Red Dwarf, Skins, Spaced, Teachers, Free Agents, and The IT Crowd. I argue that these shows were not cancelled because of insurmountable cultural differences, confusing humor, or other instances of “lost in translation,” but rather poor remakes. The US shows, in and of themselves, are not as good as their UK counterparts.

Take Sherlock. Nearly everyone knows of the iconic character; he is wrapped up with British culture. 221b Baker Street, London. His Britishness – his entwining history with England – is part of his appeal. (Sure there are examples of Holmes references, such as House and The Mentalist‘s Patrick Jane. Yet these characters do not profess to be the Sherlock Holmes, in the same way as BBC’s Sherlock and Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock films.) To transplant Sherlock Holmes into modern-day New York City is kind of like moving Superman to Manchester.

Let me be clear: I am not against remakes, reboots, reinventions, or re-imaginings. I fully support them. But I am against US networks always remaking perfectly excellent shows instead of importing the originals. Especially in this case – when CBS approached the BBC for remake rights to Sherlock and were told no, only to then announce their own version of a modern-day Sherlock in New York. Suspicious? No wonder Sherlock’s executive producer Sue Vertue has made it clear that she will protect the “interest and well-being” of the BBC series.

Yeah. CBS? How ’bout you come up with your own ideas? Be creative. Innovate. And if that fails, maybe import original British programming for a change. Believe me, there is a ready and waiting audience for it.

 

Tinker, Tailor worth the wait

I have wanted to see Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy since early summer when I saw its trailer while living in York. The film opened September 16 in England – three days after my return to the States. Imagine my disappointment when I searched for the U.S. release date, only to discover that the film would not reach American theaters until December 9! Even then, December 9 was a limited release date, and Portland theaters would not show the movie until the final weekend of 2011. Yep, December 30. After waiting half a year for this film, I entered the theater thinking it better be damn worth it.

It was. Director Tomas Alfredson’s bleak portrait of UK espionage during the 1970′s forces the viewer to slow down and appreciate silent shots and brief dialogue. Ex-spy George Smiley (brilliantly played by Gary Oldman) is asked to secretly work for ‘the Circus’ in order to find out which one of the four top British agents is leaking information to Russia: Tinker, Percy Alleline (Toby Jones); Tailor, Bill Haydon (Colin Firth); Solider, Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds); or Poor Man, Toby Esterhase (David Dencik). (Yeah…the ‘Spy’ is in reference to Smiley himself, whose predecessor also suspected Smiley of potentially being the mole. ‘Poor Man’ doesn’t sound as catchy in the title, clearly.)

Tinker is a study in suspense. This is no Jason Bourne flick. Absent are chase scenes, flashy cars, fight sequences, and fly-on-the-wall cinematography. Instead the suspense slowly builds throughout as Smiley thinks his way through the case. Sure, he moves around secretly. He visits people who are supposed to be dead or wanted dead. But in each case, Smiley is methodical and deliberative. The film’s look echoes that disciplined (some might call it ‘dull’) pace. Overcast skies compliment the dreary browns and chilly grey hues of London. There is no bright lighting or bold colors; this story is not the place for them. The dialogue is startlingly sparse. In fact, Oldman does not have a single line for the first twenty minutes. Even then his lines are short. When he finally gives a monologue (nearly 2/3 through the film), it comes as a surprise – as though Smiley were not capable of uttering more than three sentences at a time. He is more than capable, however, and the monologue is one of the best I have seen on screen this past year.

Performances are nuanced and consistent – the work of seasoned, mature actors. Indeed, it was Tinker’s bevy of A-list British actors that first attracted me to the film. You have Oldman, Firth, Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch, Tom Hardy and Mark Strong all in the same film. It’s every British film lover’s dream come true.

There is a caveat to Tinker: this is not a film for everyone. It requires patience. If you’re looking for a fast-paced action thriller, you will be sorely disappointed. If you go see Tinker to try and figure out which character is the mole, you will most likely emerge from the theater frustrated. In my opinion, Tinker is not a film for you to figure out. We get the privilege to watch Smiley solve the puzzle. The ‘clues’ that Smiley notices are often too subtle or invisible to us viewers. At the end, I didn’t really care which agent was the mole; I just wanted to know who it was. Some might find that insurmountably frustrating. I find it to be a deliberate, intentional choice by Alfredson to create a specific kind of spy film. It’s an experience in watching – allowing oneself to fully immerse into the story and be carried along for the ride. Most of the time, you’re riding blind. I found that exhilarating, and I accepted the journey due to the exquisite way in which Alfredson develops the narrative. Bottom line: Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is an acquired taste. If you appreciate meticulous, stoical, thoughtful suspense, this is your Holy Grail.

Playing at Fox Tower 10 in Portland, OR.