Sherlock
Director - Paul McGuigan
Extension - 4 seasons, 13 episodes (including things like specials)
Studio(s) - BBC
Release date - July 2010
(bad) Synopsis
I’m a G-g-g-g-g-g-genius!
Notes/Opinion
Fun fact: I actually streamed it on this Amazon-adjacent delivery service, specific to Latin America. The service happens to be free!
I guess this is one of the cases where the general opinion is a lot more divided and passionate than I expected. Sometimes I’ll come out from watching a movie or series thinking it was fine, and then it turns out everyone hates it or something.
Do I let my opinions be influenced by the public a little too much? Maybe. Or maybe it’s just that once I get out of that post-conclusion high, I can think more clearly about what I just saw and sometimes it doesn’t hold up. Maybe it’s a little of both.
I probably owe you, as my reader, that transparency: no, I’m not immune to changing my mind, or having it changed by others.
Anyway, I thought Sherlock was a fine series, even if it does have flaws. Irene Adler is very sexualized, Mary Watson gets killed off, Eurus is a villain. Not terrible in practice, but as you probably can deduce, it feels like someone who didn’t think too much of how they were writing female characters.
Speaking of, I gotta admit that I love Mary. She has a very generous and somehow non-confrontational approach to love. She knows her relationship with John doesn’t cancel out his attachment towards Sherlock, and she welcomes the latter as a part of her husband’s life. That’s pretty sweet!
I also find it interesting that she continues to kind of participate in the narrative even after death. Killing off your fictional women can turn sexist very quickly, but that small decision keeps her from feeling disposable. She isn’t conveniently “out of the way”, and that’s a good thing.
The relationship between our two leads is pretty nice. I personally see it as a deep friendship, a bromance with some in-universe scrutiny around it. A case could certainly be made for queerbaiting: John and Sherlock potentially being an item is treated seriously enough to be entertained, though not enough to actually go anywhere. I do understand why that sort of “teasing” wouldn’t fly today, with the standards for representation slowly climbing into something more accurate and thoughtful.
The chemistry between the actors Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman is undeniable, so either way it’s fun to watch.
I know some people don’t like some of Watson’s… reactions, like resenting Sherlock over his wife’s death. I mean, it sure isn’t a pretty one, but I can’t pretend it doesn’t make sense. It’s been well established that John trusts him to an unrealistic degree, he always relies on him to kind of save the day, keep people safe. And the one time he’s unable to do anything, Mary gets killed. It’s messy and irrational, but there’s a logic within that gut-driven conclusion.
Same with Watson actively going for the jugular when Sherlock turns out to be alive. Like, yeah, that tracks, sorry!
He is so so grief-stricken, he (again) admires this guy so much and knows he could’ve sent a message. Very importantly, he is also not a sentimental, affectionate person. If anything, a heartfelt reunion would’ve been painfully out of character. By the way, I love Martin Freeman’s acting in general: how the emotional moments land, the way he uses body language. His version of Watson walks in this stiff kinda of way, hurt but strong and a bit self-aware. It’s very subtle, but pretty cool!
Some people have also taken issue with how Sherlock’s intelligence is portrayed, and I get it. His renowned genius tends to manifests in almost superhuman observation skills, dramatically framed for the audience, but little else, so his characterization might come off as “regular guy attempts to write a genius”. It also doesn’t help that he’s very smug and tends to look down on people for not being as intelligent as him, constantly wishing that they “caught up.” In other words, the kind of intelligence that makes you feel dumber.
I’ve also seen complaints about Sherlock being too smug and arrogant compared to the literary version. Not compassionate enough.
Look, I haven’t read the books, but I honestly trust this judgement: screen adaptations tend to mischaracterize the book counterparts and erase some of their traits on the regular. The writers seem to be leaning into this anti-hero, “lovable jerk” kind of energy. Someone who’s more complex and sympathetic down the line. To what extent is that Sherlock, though?
Finally, Mycroft and Sherlock are genuinely so siblings. Of course with the drama and everything, the actual events are far from realistic, but the way they argue and interact shows a great understanding of how brothers actually behave. “Did you gain weight?”, “He never closes a door without his mother explicitly asking,” and so on. I wouldn’t be surprised if the writers had siblings in real life. They do care about each other, but it’s a very specific way: sometimes reluctant, often subtle. There’s a familiarity too that feels substantial. Mycroft will learn an Eastern European language from scratch to go get his brother, but still let him be captive for a while just because.
Sources: Google, Wikipedia, IMDB.