Boswell

Ok, I'm going to be boring and go on making my point here, but it's really Arcadia's fault, asking questions that make me want to try answering them :P :D I see it this way: Martin was joking, in a way that was intended to convey the (completely understandable) frustration in his head i.e. "can't I go through ONE interview talking about just my work without having to touch upon a particular co-star and his bloody cheekbones as if he were the one reason I even became an actor?" So they acknowledge that some people think it goes too far, but overall, it's defined as an attempt to be a more inclusive society. That's the part that makes me not get why people are against it. It is actually a question of theory vs practice - the definition is the theory, the stated position. The practice of it is far less ideal, and this is such a subjective issue that literally anyone can claim to be either a 'victim' or a self-appointed spokesperson for the 'victim'. The intentions of the 'perpetrator' will be dissected and analysed beyond all reason, no matter how genuine the slip-up, while the intentions of the 'victim/spokesperson' continue to be presumed innocent even if proven malicious. If I were the mature & sensible personality that is Benedict Cumberbatch, then - assuming this MF interview even registered on my radar - I would empathise with Martin, and at the most would see it as something to laugh about with, or at, Martin when we met next! and on the topic of political correctness in general, I would prefer to get away with a 'No comment' - the only safe alternative to being dishonest

I remember reading somewhere that as a student Benedict took a gap year to go to Tibet and teach English to children there. Uncommonly nice, I thought.

Touchwood! It must be great to have precious little time for a break from doing something you love...makes me wish I were him :D

For a change I managed to trace the link to the interview I mentioned, here it is, do share your thoughts please: https://youtu.be/Zb5cSrKfBG0

Agree that politeness is ideally what being PC should be all about. But the 'black' vs 'coloured' affair is a classic example of what I and others like me find so annoying about political correctness - i.e. that it's basically politeness reduced to ludicrous gimmickry. Political correctness is when a group of people decide what should be deemed impolite, regardless of whether it appeals to logic or not. And PC-ness lends itself perfectly to being used as a way of distracting attention from real issues, because it's easier to have a casual conversation about what words someone should have used than to discuss their actual message. In order to be polite you just need to have a minimum amount of human empathy and some common sense. In order to be truly PC all the time, you'd probably have to be a media mogul with access to a bunch of minions who'll be able to remind you of the correct word/s to use in any given situation (a la the boss in 'Devil wears Prada'). Or you'll have to end every conversation with something like "You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment" i.e. leave your audience neither here nor there I'm reminded of this interview of the wonderfully candid Martin Freeman, vis-a-vis 'The Hobbit', where he was asked how he felt about "finally" being able to come out of "Benedict's shadow" (yes, somebody seriously asked him that!!). I loved his answer, which was to look outraged and say 'if you think I was ever in that m*****f****r's shadow you're mistaken' That wasn't very PC but it was totally great! Spoke volumes for the comfort level & mutual respect that seem to surround his interactions with Benedict, I thought. (Or is it just me?)

Yeah, but that's just Bill's opinion, isn't it? ;) :D

<Mods, would you kindly delete this post if it is irrelevant and/or damaging to the forum> Inge, despite your express wish to have this matter laid to rest, I couldn't resist wading in to say this somehow reminds me of Sherlock's rant from Reichenbach "God forbid the star witness should come across as intelligent." ;) Carol, I personally believe that if we were to decorate every post with redundant 'IMHO's (btw i always thought the H there stood for 'honest', rather than 'humble'... what may we deduce about me from that? :D) and apologies-in-advance and generally stand on ceremony all the time, then this could soon become like any of the other, boring, forums out there - and I don't just mean Sherlock related ones - which are cluttered with perceived/actual insults, complaints, and apologies, sidelining any actual content. The first thing that had struck me about our forum is the unapologetic frankness and genuine camaraderie that makes it feel like a close-knit group and allowed me the comfort I needed to say what I thought about the show. I believe that Inge's post, and the response to it, are examples of the kind of unadulterated "mind-dump" stuff that makes this forum interesting, makes it a place worth coming back to day after day as a patch for the drug withdrawal we all experience in Sherlock's absence. While most of us need a nudge now and then to keep us civil while being frank, let's not get bogged down by niceties and political correctness here - God knows we have more than enough of that to deal with out in the real world. And yes that is my own honest opinion, which everyone here is in turn entitled to criticise. I might end up sulking on the sofa, but what the hell! :D

Oh Boton you've got me really curious now! As someone who's made a specialisation of 'offending' / conveying the wrong impression, despite my best intentions to the contrary, I can see how difficult a situation it must've been for you. Fate had her reasons for not making me an international celebrity :D We've probably all been there at some point or other...

I do hope good sense prevails generally; people manage to take offence even in a vacuum. There was some noise made the last time he used a not-strictly-PC term in public, something about 'black' vs 'coloured' terminology.

Yep, you've definitely fallen down the rabbit hole ..... :p Ah, finally some certainty! :D

I remember saying somewhere at some point that i'd prefer to hear sincerely-meant abuse from Ben's lips rather than a PR-manufactured statement - at this rate I ought to make some more substantial 'wishes' soon ;) But seriously, it is not often I've seen a successful actor putting his image on the line for the sake of an international issue with such abandon. His PR team is probably in crisis prevention mode now.

We each have our own version of reality Arcadia, and often the only thing our 'realities' have in common is that they've got nothing to do with the 'real' world ...i am losing it aren't I?

Well i'm glad it isn't a 'proper' bowtie as that would have looked ridiculous. I applaud your choice of profile pic, Inge, it was my favourite until THE violin pic (shared by JP) came along and sent my brain into a Sherlocoma! I have wondered about the version of that pic with Holmes seated in the chair and Watson perched on the arm - something about their expressions and poses has me convinced it is really two pictures photoshopped into one, though I can't put a finger on what it is.

Pardon my ignorance, but what type of necktie is it that Holmes is wearing in these pictures - it isn't a regular tie like Watson's nor a bowtie; what is it called?

This comes really late; but that's how long I've been knocked out for by pic # 2; thanks a zillion JP!

No, though I love the name! Just looked it up and it sounds interesting ...don't know when (if) I will get around to watching it though - added to my backlog now. Did spot the connection though. My immediate next priority is code-named Operation Rembrandt :D

I think you've hit upon the key to the mystery (in my mind, at least) of why I find Martin to be the better actor: the effort behind Martin's performance is completely invisible to the viewer, because Martin just becomes, rather than enacts, what the script demanded. And there's a sort of humility about the way he fits himself seamlessly into the framework of the scene, like water taking the shape of the container it's poured into...if that makes any sense.

Thanks, I played it, but I didn't really get it :(

Late 20s?? I really should do my research, but I thought he looked about 21 or 22 in this one! He's got one of those ageless faces that seem to fool time. Oh yes Olivia Colman looked like a worthy screen partner for him. I loved her in that delightful American sketch - "Wor-cest-er-shy-er"

another coincidence: This man practically started his TV career shouting the line "I'm not gay"; cut to thirteen years later and the third series of Sherlock, he's doing the same :lol: The more things change,...

Thanks a ton, Carol, for introducing me to Bruiser; I've really enjoyed the 3 episodes I've seen so far. Martin Freeman is absolutely mesmerising, and it's amazing to note that all the subtlety in his Sherlock performance was very much there right from the beginning. He really is a complete natural (not a naturist, though, ha ha). His straight face in the Bond sketches is the punchline, I'd start laughing the minute he walks into the frame, and in the Gary-Samantha ones he is so beautifully convincing! I mean, just look at the moment when his hand moves possessively to that string of beads (in his 'gay' act) when Samantha asks him to give them back! I even liked his American accent. Throughout he is just perfect. I wonder if all the uproarious lines in these things were actually scripted or the actors have mostly ad-libbed. Coincidence: the other actor I really liked in this show was a tall lean chap with curly hair and prominent cheekbones (Robert Webb)

Oh, I like this idea! (I see that there have been more replies since I started writing mine, but I'll go ahead and post this much before I get hopelessly behind.) So far I've thought of three factors that might apply: 1. As Pamela says, "you hurt the one you love," which I think is generally because they've allowed you inside their personal defense system, where it's readily possible to hurt them deeply. This probably applies most to Molly, who hardly seems to filter Sherlock at all. 2. An attention-getting technique. I can't offhand think of any examples, but it does gibe with Sherlock's apparent emotional age. 3. They're handy. When Sherlock needs to test the effects of a psychoactive drug, for example, he can't very well test it on himself, because a] his mind is not ordinary, and b] how can he observe properly if he's stoned? That means he needs a test subject, and preferably one who doesn't know they're being tested (so their expectations don't contaminate the results). So it's only logical for him to use John a good bit of the time. Also, and most probably, Sherlock "uses" people he likes because he believes they can be trusted not to freak out or get mad at him if and when they find out. I know I do that :D

While I do look forward to the Victorian aspects of the special, I think I'll be happy if they let our 21st century Sherlock seep in a little at times (to me that phrase does sound like him, as let's face it, he does want to be cool, with his upturned coat collar, doesn't he?). I think they will know that after such a long break, the audience are going to miss the version of Sherlock we know, so they may thrown in a few elements that are more about pleasing the fans than strict accuracy. About how purely Victorian it will be, I'm wondering if people more well-up on what the writers have given away (however trustworthy that may be) know is the whole thing definitely set in the same time period? I was sure they said it would answer some questions raised last season, but that seems impossible if everything is in 1895. Yes, it's one of the things I'm telling myself too - that the whole Victorian thing is hopefully just a facade, behind which something deviously wicked is going on!

To my mind the main difference between Martin's & Ben's acting is that Martin's style is more camera-friendly, while Ben's is more suited to the theatre. As Sherlock, for example, Ben's body language is all drama and flair - the swishing of the coat/dressing gown, the lithe swaying of the body, almost dancer-like, when the script probably just said "Sherlock turns around to look at XYZ" or some such prosaic thing. As Turing, the vulnerability and pathos in his performance are almost tangible characters by themselves. He seems always to be on some sort of imaginary stage, all bold and effervescent body language that simply cannot be ignored. (which is why such numbers of people thought it a joy to watch him on stage as Hamlet even if it meant sitting through Shakespeare ) Martin's style OTOH is completely, 100%, natural. Such an unobtrusive presence, you barely take notice until one fine day when you do and then it hits you like a bullet and you go "what an amazing actor", as Carol & I have experienced. His face is among the most expressive i've ever seen on screen, and so I think close-ups work best for him. He makes you observe. His style is all subtlety, like one of those dear everyday things that you don't think you'd miss, until they're gone

...the things actors have to do.. I'd just made a mental note to start with Bruisers and then try Nightwatching, but now this mention you made of his shoes is going to stick in my head and make me laugh all the artiness out of it! But seriously, I'm a total fan of his acting having only seen Sherlock, I think he is actually a better actor than Cumberbatch, although I must say the types of roles that suit each of them are almost mutually exclusive and so a comparison is not very meaningful.