subtle science

My date of birth? None of your business. But I'm older than dirt, if you really care. Post count? I don't know and don't care--the two probably are related. Avatar and signature? The tiger is clearly an adult. However you judge the rest is your personal matter. I'm guessing that I don't really need "adult access."

I love Moffat's Doctor Who....I also don't watch much current TV, so that's a bit of an issue for anyone reading this. I'm a fan of the first two seasons of Torchwood (and I've apologized to anyone who began watching the show, upon my recommendation, with COE...). Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Star Trek--especially the original series, which I am old enough to have watched, and the reboot film. Harry Potter.... except, based upon my experiences, I wouldn't recommend anyone in the world going anywhere near that fandom. Although, to be fair, I understand that a lot of fandoms have the same issues....which is why I've never, ever gone near TW (read--it's revoltingly ugly), BVS, or ST...........................................There are better ways to spend one's time.

As graphic as this scene is, it is one of my favorites in "Reichenbach"--played perfectly by Scott and Cumberbatch....I'm going to miss that interplay, because the two actors are amazing together......But the character development........... My take on it is that Moriarity commis suicide because he lost: he was convinced he'd won, by forcing Holmes' hand--if Holmes didn't commit suicide, then his friends would die. However, he slipped and revealed, as Holmes realized, that there was a recall. A mistake. That leads to one of the best scenes for Holmes--a match for "A Scandal in Belgravia," when he wreaks revenge on the CIA operative who dared to hurt Mrs. Hudson. "Reichenbach" is full of Christ imagery for Holmes, as well as the depictions of him as the avenging angel (in "Scandal," too, Moffat made sure we didn't miss it when he armed Holmes with the scimitar at the end)....The speech about "I'm not my brother" and "I'm not one of them" is chilling: Holmes is implacable and terrifying, and Moriarity understands he's lost--Holmes will get that recall....Moriarity is facing the wrath of God at that point. The only way he can win, he believes, is if he dies: no recall, no recourse for Holmes--Holmes will have to die in order to save his friends. So, Moriarity tries to force Holmes' hand again....not knowing that his ultimate "all in" was futile.... And I'll just add that I am so happy the "all in" is futile mostly because of Molly, the stalwart.

Thank you for posting this--I'd read pieces of it before, but not the whole thing. Oh, Steven Moffat: I am ridiculously fond of you. Yes, I could do a total fangirl gush over him. Oh, hell--I DO a total fangirl gush over him. Thank you for the interview, Mr. Moffat. Now get back to the keyboard and keep writing.

I saw two links on LJ, via the Torchwood friends link. I like the circuitous route, I guess.

I'm hoping that Moffat/Gatiss follow the original stories, so far as Moriarity is concerned (well, in other things, too--but that's beside this point! ). The rooftop scene was pretty graphic. Very graphic, actually. And underscored by Holmes' reaction of utter shock and horror.

I took Holmes' laugh as his realization that Moriarity had inadvertently revealed there was a way out--that there was a signal to call off the snipers, without Sherlock's suicide. He had Moriarity backed into a corner, knew it, and thought that meant he didn't have to go through with the elaborate ruse of his suicide....After all, the ruse was dangerous--it could go wrong; plus, no matter what Holmes landed on....it was going to hurt. (And, yeah--hurt Watson as well.) Then that gave us the incredible, chilling "angel" speech, delivered to absolute perfection by Cumberbatch, which resulted in Moriarity's realization that he'd been beaten--except if he played his final card. Which meant Holmes had to go back to his original plan and arrangement. ETA...Something else that Holmes does which is rather odd, up on the rooftop: before he jumps, he deliberately tosses his phone aside. Interesting, after he tells Watson, "This is my note." Someone, somewhere on LJ, who also noticed this suggested that Holmes had recorded the conversation with Moriarity. It does seem that the phone was left on the rooftop for a purpose--there's no logical reason for his tossing it rather than keeping it in his coat, except that he wanted someone to find it.

Holmes' sudden fame makes some sense, because of Watson's blog....but I agree with the questioning about Holmes' allowing himself to be on public display in the opening montage of cases. He's clearly ill at ease (never mind Watson's having to remind him to feign graciousness)--except when Lestrade mocks him; when he leaves for the court, he literally has to brace himself before he exits Baker Street. I do wonder how much of this has been orchestrated by and coordinated with Mycroft? Was all this bait to get Moriarity to come out into the open, to target Sherlock for interfering (it's what Moriarity was on about in the swimming pool scene in "The Great Game")? Vote for the 'out of character' moment: Holmes' request for a "moment of privacy" at the edge of the rooftop....Seems an ideal moment to signal any compatriots, and it seems extremely odd for Holmes to ask for such a thing.

This episode was amazing....Funnily enough, I haven't found myself caring much about how Holmes faked his death: it's enough to know he did, and I'm waiting to see how Moffat/Gatiss adapt "The Empty House" to present their explanation. I think my reaction is a combination of knowing the Doyle stories and loving the surprise resolution to the first series cliffhanger (the latter being one of my favorite moments in the whole show). What capitvates me about "The Reichenbach Fall" are the characterizations--the relentless, perfectly executed development that's been ongoing since the first minute of "A Study in Pink"....and the combination of humor and drama: the episode is hilarious, and frightening, and compelling, and tear jerking.......Just....Wow.

Yes, I have read the Doyle stories, and I'm quite sure without preconceived ideas. I don't read with the intent of putting my own views into the work before I've looked at the pages--and that really applies to my first readings of Doyle 30-40 years ago. None of that matters, though, obviously. I'm sorry my post was offensive, and I will gracefully, I hope, bow out of this discussion.

The Doyle stories don't present Holmes as dysfunctional, or asexual....Instead, Holmes reflects a very Victorian sensibility that sees women as naturally inferior: as emotional creatures who lack a man's capacity for reason and logic. Not that Holmes treats women poorly in the stories: in fact, he's quite gallant, even complimentary when they appear competent. It's just a typically patriarchal, condescending attitude--even though Watson ends up married (however many times), he, too, demonstrates the same attitude. Watson's occasionally rather effuse admiration of Holmes in the stories comes from the same sensibility: Holmes is on a pedestal for being a man of science, thinking, and rationality, untainted by 'weaker' emotions. And the result of all the emphasis on the admirable 'male' traits and the celebration of masculinity is that there always seems to be a homosexual undertone to the Watson/Holmes relationship. Which is just kind of entertaining. I love what Moffat and Gatiss have done--everyone else, including and maybe especially Watson, since he's living with Holmes, tries to figure out Holmes, who remains a will-o-the-wisp, sexually. Cumberbatch plays it perfectly: his Holmes is utterly unfazed by references to or questions about whether he's straight or gay or anything else; while Watson is defensive, Holmes blithely goes on, undefined and elusive. "Not my area," he says--yet he's tuned in enough to sexuality that he reads Jim from IT as gay (and not affronted by the phone number left for him) and to gauge with perfect accuracy Adler's measurements. It's such a great way to approach the character--and not easy to pull off, yet they all do. It's fun, then, for the audience, too--who can try to puzzle out Holmes, just as the characters try to do; or read into Holmes; or come up with fanfiction--whatever.

I loved Watson's exasperated, "Who the hell knows about Sherlock Holmes--but, for the record, if anyone cares, I'm NOT GAY," to Adler....And, of course, her retort that she is gay, with the point being that they both love Holmes, even if none of the sexual orientations actually match up. I really liked Moffat's estimation of Holmes as being like a monk--first and foremost, that Holmes is celibate, and his sexuality is a mystery to those around him....I like the way Gatiss and Moffat have played with the idea of people's reactions and assumptions: what outsiders think, say, and believe. I want to know about the ring that looks very much like a wedding ring on Mycroft's right hand.

I was undecided--but intrigued because of the Moffat connection (and, later, I found out that Gatiss would be involved as well): I figured that, surely, the stories and characters must be in good hands.... I agree that one of the key components is that the original stories were written to be cutting edge: Holmes, according to Doyle, is all about new scientific methods. That emphasis tallies beautifully with placing Holmes in the world of modern forensics--it's what the 1880s character was already doing. Plus, Moffat and Gatiss kept London as one of the main characters: Victorian or 21st century--doesn't matter; what matters is the flavor and tone of that iconic city.

"Are we here to see the Queen?' "Apparently." "I'll be mother." "And there, in a nutshell, is a whole childhood." On the more serious side, the undercurrent of Holmes' having suffered some loss in the past is intriguing: the motive for not caring--or, rather, trying not to...Because, as Holmes demonstrates over and over in this episode, he does care. Quite a bit. The order to "shoot Dr. Watson" elicits near panic from Holmes, because he does not know the code and has no idea. The CIA guy earns himself "falls" from the window for hurting Mrs. Hudson (that whole sequence, from Holmes' arrival to the scene in Mrs. H's kitchen, is brilliant). Holmes is appalled at his own crass behavior toward Molly and apologizes (I love Watson's expression in the background).......So, he does have a heart, and it feels rather deeply. So much so that Mycroft is on alert for a "danger night" and Sherlock's former addiction seems to be connected to a similar emotional blow to Adler's death--and so he must be protected from the knowledge of her death, at the end of the episode.

I just re-watched this one yesterday.....God--I love this episode; every time I watch it, I see more. It's utterly fantastic, from the intricate plotting to the depth of the character development. Just the opening alone: the paralleling of Adler and Holmes....Neither of them really interested in their clients, because the clients really are not all that interesting--just a job. Adler's flicking through the photos of Sherlock sent to her by Moriarity as Sherlock flicks through the photos of Adler given to him by Mycroft--and thereby setting up the idea that this epsiode is really about Moriarity and Mycroft acting as puppeteers in the background...and wholly miscalculating about their puppets. Sherlock's wrapped in the white sheet, while his pile of tailored clothing is solid black/Adler's tailored white dress, while she carries a black wrap. Sherlock's 'battle dress' is a vicar's collar; Adler's is her nudity--and neither is fazed by the other's battle dress; instead, they discover the commonality of their intellectualism....I believe Adler is the first person in the show whom Holmes has challenged to 'figure it out' on her own--and she does. This episode is a stunning piece of work--on everyone's part.

Sherlock Holmes. it's always been Sherlock Holmes, and this edition just makes it even more emphatic.

There's so much going on within episodes, and then details connect with other episodes--it's like reading the stories: Doyle rewarded re-reading, as Moffat/Gatiss now reward re-watching. The actors are up to it, too: they don't go over the top of stealing scenes from each other, but no one's standing around like a room-filling stick, either. The episodes have to be re-watched, because there's no way to be able to watch everyone all at the same time--and the actors reward anyone who focuses on their characters. In "The Great Game," how about the minor exchange between Holmes and Lestrade, with Holmes' quip about "good samaritan?"/"bad samaritan?": the lines are funny, but Cumberbatch's inflections and facial expressions punch it home--with the aid of Graves' reactions. Basically, no one wastes a moment in these shows; to me, it's about the best TV I've ever seen.

May I give this a 6.5? Bottom of the list, I'm afraid, for Sherlock, as far as I'm concerned. Yet--it's not that the episode is bad.....it's just.....forgettable. When I rewatch it, I like it okay--but I just don't remember it much after it's over. The handling of race in the episode is dicey--but is actually an improvement over anything Doyle wrote. Faint praise, I know....But, anyway: the topic just isn't handled adroitly and veers toward offensive, and pretty much ends up just being cartoon-y by the end. And never genuinely interesting. This is the episode that feels, to me, padded--there's an awful lot of Holmes' earnestly explaining Stuff to Watson, including Stuff Watson already knows, and then earnestly re-explaining it.

I did like the nods to the original novel (including the dramatic shots of Holmes' standing on the outcroppings), but this episode isn't a favorite of mine. (It's still better than 95% of anything else on TV.) I like it better than "The Blind Banker"--that one was, among a few other things, just not too interesting to me. I disliked the whole opening of this episode--I found it extremely overdone: the direction, the writing, and Cumberbatch were all really off. The episode simply didn't gel, in my view--there were excellent bits and pieces, but there were also bits and pieces that didn't work at all; the end result was uneven and seemed more of a case of what might have been, rather than what was achieved. Tovey was adequate....Somehow, though, I never managed to find much sympathy for or interest in the character--who did come across as a rerun of Tovey's Being Human character, and I found that character to be grating. That was a lot of whinging. Seriously--there WERE things I really, really did love about the episode. I probably could just rewatch Cumberbatch doing the shaking hand with the drink thing over and over again.....

In the endless list of "What I Loved....," the casting and the development of Watson's character in this adaptation was one of the immediate attractions. I loathe the depictions of Watson as some dull witted, elderly buffoon--in other words, almost every other version of the character except Jude Law's (his is good, but a bit supercilious for my taste--I wish they'd cast Law as Holmes).....Anyway. Moffat respects the character and brings it right back to how Watson appears in the stories: an Everyman, but one with intelligence, plus a heavy dose of curiosity, morality, and compassion. Plus--young. For that alone, I could kiss Moffat and Gatiss--they went right to the stories and show Holmes and Watson as they are in "A Study in Scarlet": two young men. Not a pair of retirees.

The draw, for me, to Moffat/Gatiss work is the depth and the layering....And a small example of that is Holmes's showing up at the train tracks, while Watson is supposedly investigating on his own--and remarking that he wouldn't actually ignore the case "just to spite my brother." I am really looking forward to more unfolding of the Holmess brothers' relationship and backstory....

My favorite of the first three episodes. The opener was superb; "The Blind Banker" was adequate, but rather ordinary after the home run of "A Study in Pink"--and then along came this one. It gets to the point that I really can't even organize a discussion of the episode: it sort devolves into just an endless OMGOMGOMG. Hardly analytical. But....The exchange between Mycroft and Sherlock: "Don't make me order you." "I'd like to see you try." What it says about the brothers' relationship, what it says about each brother--and what it promises for future development. And Andrew Scott's Moriarity: more performance perfection....Insane, hilariously and inappropriately funny, chilling, menacing. And--possibly the best cliffhanger ever (and the best solution ever, but that's another series).

I watched this because of the Moffat/Gatiss brand name on it, plus my love of the Doyle stories--not overstating to say that my favorite literary character has always been Sherlock Holmes. This BBC series had me hooked within 10 minutes, easily shooting to the top of best adaptation of the stories, in my estimation. Perhaps it was a bit too obvious that the villain was the cabbie--however, bonus points for the twist that he was a 'sponsored' serial killer. For the rest--brilliant. What a cast! The interpretations of the characters, the performances, the direction. Yeah--I'm gushing. There's a lot that could fall under the heading of "I love..." about this episode, but I think the #1 might be the nuance in Cumberbatch's performance--there's an edge of defensiveness to his Holmes: he expects rejection from Watson (That's not what people usually say." "What do people usually say?" "Piss off."_); then there's the thawing as he realizes he's found a genuine counterpart....The invitation to dinner at the very end is the perfect touch.