In which I rethink what could be audacious and historical

may-shepard:

isitandwonder:

recentlyfolded:

As I look at what fans have been writing since the Great Debunking, I am struggling to rewrite my understanding of the show to incorporate this new information we’ve been given by the clearly fed-up-with-fans’-shit writers.

I don’t share their sense that “no homo” jokes are hilarious, but then, I’ve never cared for Moffat’s boyish view of heterosexuality and managed to watch around that in his shows for what other bits of brilliance he can bring to a script (and I’ll be clear: I still feel that despite his many flaws as a writer, he does have moments of brilliance). But since Mark Gatiss himself has assured us that this is all completely and knee-slappingly hilarious, it’s also not up to me to judge them: all I can do is decide the extent to which I feel it unfunny and whether it irretrievably taints the show for me.

Similarly, I remain baffled as to how two such capable writers, not to mention all of those directors, managed to cram quite so many romantic tropes and such romantic acting into a couple of characters, over so many episodes, who have no relationship other than being best mates. I was never of tjlc certainty, but I have always thought that the real treasure in even ACD’s stories was the relationship between these two men and I was thrilled that it seemed, in this version, so much more well-established and fundamental. Editing this out, re-interpreting all of those scenes to just mates and rejecting the romantic tropes is a difficult exercise and I’m finding it so difficult I’m not sure I can perform the necessary rewatch for doing so. What was enthusiasm for what I thought to be a pretty damned good bit of television is so battered now that I can’t even support that basic premise any longer. Their insistence that there is no romance just destroys the quality of the whole thing. Brilliantly written to utterly failed is quite a leap, and a failure of that magnitude no longer seems worth the effort.

And so I find myself again mulling over the audacious television history enthusing AA did at SDCC. There are lots of plot things that they can do in s4 that might warrant this in her imagination, and I’ve pondered some of them already in my blog.

But it was in looking at this photo today that another notion began to solidify. AA is nothing if not self-absorbed, and I wonder if this take on history mightn’t indeed be that the error the fanboys have chosen to “correct” is the non-entity nature of Watson’s bride(s). Taking this character and not just expanding her into a full character instead of just an offscreen name might not be all we get. Instead, the whole “Uncle Sherlock” thing may be exactly it. If Mary Watson has been shown to be capable in s3 and, perhaps, redeemable in TAB, is that the setup for a threesome of case-solvers in s4-5? Is that the audacious move they’re writing: bringing Mary Watson fully into the show? Watson in domestic life is certainly hinted at in ACD; to go into it further with this bold new Mary rather does compliment this bold new Watson we’ve been given. As I mentally wall Holmes off from emotional engagement, then, this does grow more plausible. And Sue Vertue has indeed deeply hinted that Uncle Sherlock will be fine taking care of Bunny Watson.

Is their boldness, then, to be one of making the modern Sherlock just as superficially ordinary as the Victorian one? An openly loving gay Sherlock isn’t what ACD wrote, even though we fans readily embraced his modernization going in that direction. A marriage for Watson where his wife is incorporated into his life and Work with Sherlock: maybe that’s what they feel is the way to modernize him while still keeping him that degree of remote from the real world that ACD captured. This, I can see with little imagination required, would indeed thrill AA, and its threatened thematic revelation could well be one that would send Sue Vertue into her epic eye-bug. 

Do I want this? Not especially. But, as the writers so forcefully reminded us, it’s their show to do with what amuses them. And the more I think about it, this, instead of a romantic underpinning, does sort of fit with what we’ve so far seen (with the proviso that we expunge all of what looked like emotional engagement between the two men), what’s been in setlock, and what’s been hinted about s4. If Mary has joined Team Sherlock as the whole lot of them are challenged by something in his past, that doesn’t contradict any dark and dangerous teases, but does seem like something that would thrill AA. In our new understanding of the show, it does make sense.

I won’t be supporting the show they’re making now with my dvd purchases the way I happily did when I still thought it quality television, but I’ll likely at least begin watching the new series. Whether I’ll find it enough to my taste to continue, well, that remains to be seen.

Is that the threesome AA hinted at at the Nerdist panel? Sorry, I fear exactly the same - and it makes me sad and a little bit nauseous. But most of all I feel

BORED. This would be so ordinary…

I get where this kind of speculation is coming from, but I don’t think this would be especially revolutionary. Not even in Amanda Abbington’s eyes. 

I think she’s excited about getting to play a villain.

Interviewer: I want to talk to you about your character. I did not trust her from the beginning.

AA: No. Did you not?

Interviewer: Of course not.

 AA: I love that you didn’t trust her from the beginning. That’s very insightful. Because I totally did. [Sue nods.] I mean I knew she had a secret, but I didn’t know it was going to be that enormous, and that chilling, actually. So uh–

Sue: […something about playing it normally?] I remember looking at the early series of 24, like the second series, when everyone thought, maybe I’m the bad guy, and I think everyone was playing it with a slight edge of–just in case I turn out to be the bad–[laughs] 

Interviewer: But that didn’t happen with you.

AA: No, well because I didn’t know what her storyline was. I knew she’d done something in a past life, but I didn’t know what it was, so, the fact that she does the ultimate betrayal, and sort of [sic] shoots Sherlock, was um, yeah it was great to play, it was great to play, it was great.

This is the part of the interview that we haven’t focused on as much, because it isn’t the grand statement about groundbreaking television history that follows. But I would just suggest that 1) we are getting an unambiguous statement from Amanda that shooting Sherlock was a betrayal. 2) the flip from relatively benevolent Mary to villain!Mary was meant to be a shock, was meant to be huge and chilling, not the “shrug oopsie” that some readings have made it out to be.

Most importantly 3) the statements about television history are preceded by her making it clear that Mary’s actions are terrible.

This is Amanda, who said her favourite scene from the series was the pool scene (yes I think that was a nudge nudge wink wink but let’s keep things simple here). I’m no Amanda stan, but I do think she knows how to play the game in a way that makes it not all about her.

As much as I would love to see any show offer more respect to its female characters, I trust Mofftiss to do a m/m pairing much more than I trust their feminism. (”Feminism.”)

Don’t know if that helps, op.

I may be 95% sure of johnlock as endgame, but completely separate from that, I’m 100% sure that it’s never going to be a happy trio and uncle Sherlock. 

Amanda was gloating over how bad Mary was in several interviews at SDCC. Plus there’s the infamous ‘fucking psychopath’ tweet. Honestly, I think AA loves being evil (what actor doesn’t?), and I also think she gets what the show is really about and is able to applaud that separate from her own character/career. I have a feeling AA ships johnlock pretty hard.

Making them a happy trio also wouldn’t be ‘groundbreaking television’ in any way. Plenty of shows have had various buddy configurations, and even giving the original Mary from ACD more of a role isn’t exactly ‘groundbreaking’.

Add in the fact that we didn’t see that much of AA in setlock after E1, and the half-assed replies to questions about the marriage and baby at SDCC and, yeah, not worried.

Also: All roads lead to Baker St. TAB showed us that it’s always John and Sherlock - “there’s always two of us”, at Reichenbach falls, and at the end at 221B in front of the fire. Mary is not a part of that picture and never will be.