Since the
conclusion of the last episode of Sherlock series 3, which I’ve watched several
times, I have read innumerable reviews claiming that series 3 was amazing; excellent;
spectacular, etc., etc. While most reviews acknowledge the occasional weakness in
plot, direction, or editing, and admittedly, tended to cringe a bit over
episode 2, most commentators found series 3 was well worth the wait. Granted
there were some excellent elements in series 3, but in its totality and as a story
continuation, this series simply fails to hang together.
I
understand that series 3 is a different story. Moffat has reminded us that Sherlock is not a detective story, but a
story about a detective. By that reckoning, a story about a detective is a story
about a character. With the show’s continued popularity, there has been an
opportunity to focus on character development. But character development is usually
built on the character already established. From a story-telling perspective,
something decidedly odd has happened to series 3 Sherlock.
Series 3 Sherlock
seems to be a markedly different character, with a profoundly different personality
than the Sherlock of series 1 and 2. We are all aware of stories in which a
major character undergoes life-altering transformation. It makes an engaging story
that binds us to the character and ensures our on-going interest. But for the
transformation to be believable we must know why it occurred, and must see consistent
fundamental character elements in the post transformation character. This is
good story-telling, and I think Moffat knows this.
Series 3
provides no satisfactory explanation for Sherlock’s transformation. How do we
reconcile the Sherlock of series 1 and 2, who distains everything mundane, with
the Sherlock of series 3 who YouTubes napkin folding and pirouettes to demonstrate
his love of dancing? Are we to assume that his two-year hiatus somehow radically
altered him?
We know
that Sherlock holds affection for John. That affection is consistent with all versions
of the narrative. Despite this affection, BBC
Sherlock’s version of John has never been exempt from Sherlock’s derision;
nor has any other character. But for some reason, Mary appears to be immune
from Sherlock’s distain. Series 3 tells us Mary is clever, a former assassin,
and John’s true love. But the earlier Sherlock did not refrained from
expressing his contempt for others, even when he admired their clever, manipulative,
or murderous qualities. What happened to Sherlock’s character that he became so
tolerant and accepting of Mary? Love for John never stopped him before.
While Sherlock’s
cruel manipulation of Janine is truer to the earlier character, it is jarring
in light of his new personality. We know Sherlock has changed. He indulges Anderson,
composes a waltz for John, pouts over Mycroft’s characterization of him as “stupid,”
and takes it in stride that Mary almost kills him. But how is the Sherlock who
uses Janine so cruelly, the same Sherlock who adopts homeless Bill Wiggins as protégé
and invites him home for Christmas dinner with the folks (although admittedly with a
chemical-related purpose in mind)?
The Sherlock
in series 1 and 2 was a man whose analytical genius eschewed human relationship.
But in series 3, he is a man with ordinary, affectionate, and charmingly eccentric
parents. It would seem that his home life was accepting (replete with treasured
family pet). Are we to assume that the environment in which he was raised had
no bearing on his personality until he went away and encountered character
transforming events? A math-wizard mother, who gave it all up to raise her sons,
does little to explain this marked personality shift.
There are countless similar character inconsistencies in series 3, mainly regarding the character of Sherlock. Despite the laughs, the surprising twists, the rapid action, and great acting, something important just didn’t work in this series.
Stories involving Sherlock Holmes, from Doyle through most other manifestation, have always been stories about character. They are stories about a detective, his trusty side kick, and their adventures. It is through these stories that we have grown to love, and iconize, these characters. But somehow this series has put the Holmes/Watson dynamic aside. A seemingly new Sherlock character has emerged; one whose antisocial qualities make allowances for complex interpersonal interactions with host of other characters. He has wonderful parent and a brother who begrudgingly loves him. He no longer just has John as side-kick, but also has the clever (and perhaps useful) Mary as an add-on. He even has a protégé.
It may be true that Sherlock is a story about a detective, but it seems that this series has become a story about a man, albeit an odd man, who happens to be a detective and happens to be named Sherlock Holmes. A story about a man named Sherlock Holmes is not the same thing as a story about Sherlock Holmes.
There are countless similar character inconsistencies in series 3, mainly regarding the character of Sherlock. Despite the laughs, the surprising twists, the rapid action, and great acting, something important just didn’t work in this series.
Stories involving Sherlock Holmes, from Doyle through most other manifestation, have always been stories about character. They are stories about a detective, his trusty side kick, and their adventures. It is through these stories that we have grown to love, and iconize, these characters. But somehow this series has put the Holmes/Watson dynamic aside. A seemingly new Sherlock character has emerged; one whose antisocial qualities make allowances for complex interpersonal interactions with host of other characters. He has wonderful parent and a brother who begrudgingly loves him. He no longer just has John as side-kick, but also has the clever (and perhaps useful) Mary as an add-on. He even has a protégé.
It may be true that Sherlock is a story about a detective, but it seems that this series has become a story about a man, albeit an odd man, who happens to be a detective and happens to be named Sherlock Holmes. A story about a man named Sherlock Holmes is not the same thing as a story about Sherlock Holmes.
