Mycroft on Screen
Whenever you put Sherlock Holmes on screen it will always, inevitably, be wrong (too many changes, not enough changes, wears a deerstalker, is too gay, not gay enough… etc) but on the whole, people are quite forgiving of Sherlock. We’ll accept a short, blond Holmes as long as you get Watson right. People are less forgiving of a bad-Watson.
But what about Mycroft?
I did a quick search for Mycroft on the IMDb character search and you’d be surprised looking at the list of actors who have portrayed him:
Richard E. Grant
Mark Gatiss
Christopher Lee
Stephen Fry
Charles Gray
Boris Klyvuev
Only Fry & Gray (with apologies, neither can be described as ‘corpulent’) come even close to the description of our first encounter with the elder Holmes: “Heavily built and massive, there was a suggestion of uncouth physical inertia in the figure.” (GREE). Holmesians get upset when writers ‘mess around’ with Sherlock and Watson but Mycroft is fair game.
In the truly awful ‘Case of Evil’, Richard E Grant plays a crippled former drug-addicted version of Mycroft. It’s one of those reveals that makes a terrible film just that little bit worse. Christopher Lee plays closer to canon, you can believe “he is, on occasion, the British government.” even if he physically doesn’t resemble the character. Stephen Fry is a buffoonishly bizarre Mycroft but it’s a clever piece of casting and Boris Klyvuev’s Mycroft has perhaps the greatest developed home life of any (so far) – he’s very fond of his dog (a red setter), has a son and works for the Foreign Office. There’s no reason why Mycroft can’t have a son, unless you take Sherlock’s comments about “no ambition and no energy” very literally.
Out of all the Mycroft’s, I would argue that Mark Gatiss is the truest version will ever seen on screen. A dangerously clever man who runs the British government and has an ongoing weight problem.
In defence of Moffat: Thoughts on Irene Adler, Sherlock’s Sexuality and Mycroft
Steven Moffat is being taken to task by some Holmesians (and journalists) concerning his interpretation of Irene Adler, to the point of accusing him of being sexist. Jane Clare Jones in particular, accuses him of making a ‘regressive step’ by Irene being saved by Sherlock at the end.
I completely disagree and I’m going to out myself as not being a canonical Irene Adler fan. I agree with Moffat that her original ‘victory’ is “not a feminist victory”.
In the original story she’s not a strong character, she’s been made into a strong character by later writers and Holmesians but she’s not. She doesn’t really outwit Sherlock either – she runs off to America with her husband. I always take his failure to recognise her disguise as nothing particularly significant – it’s dark, he’s not in ‘Sherlock mode’ (getting your keys out to the open the front door… is anyone really entirely ‘on’?) and let’s be honest, his encounter with her probably lasted a total of fifteen minutes during which he was in disguise and desperately trying to find a way to trick her.
I don’t see their Irene as any sort of character-betrayal, we’re supposed to believe that she’s this clever blackmailer, but at the end of the day, her solution is to leave the country with her husband which doesn’t seem the safest of options when people are after you! Moffat/Gatiss’s Irene plays Mycroft and Sherlock, almost winning. I’ve watched the episode a couple of times and I’m still trying to work out what was part of her game and what might have been true about her.
In ‘Sherlock’ Irene is part of Moriarty’s scheme – he sends her photographs of Sherlock and she reads John’s blog. She’s also not a criminal, her camera phone is for protection, she keeps ‘secrets’ in order to stop anyone going after her. The compromising photographs bluff that she uses to get at Sherlock essentially turns him into her client, she’s pulling the strings to get him to dance and knows exactly how to do it. At the end of the episode, we don’t know if the demands are hers, after all – she’s working for Moriarty.
Even though it’s pretty clear from the DVD commentary on ‘Scandal in Belgravia’ that they’re intention is Irene being saved, I interpret the ending of is a possibly a fantasy. I think she’s dead. Mycroft would know that Sherlock had gone to Karachi and infiltrated a terrorist cell, and unless he’s the one that arranged it I can’t see her being alive (plus, Sherlock did that very quickly…!) It sort of links back to ‘Study in Pink’, what would you say in your last dying moment…? And if he did save her, I don’t believe it’s a betrayal or a sexist thing – she’s a dominatrix, she’s got under Sherlock’s skin and knows exactly what buttons to press to get a reaction.
Moffat’s also come under criticism from parts of the Holmesian community for the relationship between John & Sherlock. I’ve always seen the relationship between the two of them (canon) as borderline at the most. Holmes has unrequited feelings for Watson that he is not only scared to express but doesn’t really know how to, Watson very likely has some idea but never really thought it through and the sad tragedy of their friendship is that everything remained unsaid.
Moffat and Gatiss are huge fans of ‘The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes’ (they presented a screening of it last year) and I think a lot of the stuff between Sherlock & John is very reminiscent of what Billy Wilder did with their relationship in film (favourite scene where Watson runs home to confront Holmes about what he’s said). In the DVD commentary for ‘Study in Pink’, Moffat and Gatiss have a long conversation about ‘the sexuality issue’, coming down on the side of he’s celibate and not asexual. Sherlock is capable of having sexual feelings/desire but he chooses to focus on his work (“I consider myself married to my work”) and when it comes up again in ‘Scandal in Belgravia’ it’s hinted that it frightens/intimidates him (although, it’s kind of hard to know if it’s just Mycroft being a bit of a dick or he is getting at Sherlock’s fear). I interpreted Sherlock’s reaction (“not my area”) to mean relationships in general. With all the various camps you are never going to satisfy any of them and if that’s how they interpret the character (they at least acknowledge the sexual ambiguity openly).
Regarding gay subtext, they seem to imply that Mycroft is gay (not just because he’s played by Mark Gatiss) – my favourite bit in ‘Scandal in Belgravia’ is Sherlock referring to Mycroft as “a queen” (which could have nothing to do with his sexuality, I know straight men who I would describe as ’queens’ if I was being rude) again on the DVD commentary for ‘A Study in Pink’, Gatiss talks about playing Mycroft like he would play Peter Mandelson, who is of course a very powerful gay man and please tell me I’m not the only person who thought Mycroft was about to reveal to John that he and Moriarty had been lovers at some point in their history.
Film Review: ‘Sherlock Holmes – A Game of Shadows’
Guy Ritche’s last Holmesian offering won the sceptics over and found a place with modern blockbuster loving audiences. Moving Holmes away from the cerebral and placing him as an eccentric pugilist Victorian James Bond allowed Ritcihe to satisfy his core fan base whilst avoiding many of the criticisms that have befallen previous attempts to bring Holmes to the big screen. His Holmes and Watson inhabited that special cinematic ‘bromantic’ world where they could exchange barbs, clothes and other things that would have previously been labelled homoerotic. Robert Downey Jr makes for a delightfully eccentric and built Holmes, it’s entirely believable that his Holmes is equally at home fighting his way through crowds of thugs and a good game of chess. Jude Law played long-suffering ex-Army doctor remarkably well (periodically disappearing limp aside).
This time round Ritche (and screenwriters Michele & Kieran Mulroney) have tried to give us a more conventional Holmesian mystery, which unfortunately doesn’t work in this established formula. To complain that a Sherlock Holmes film has too much Holmes might be contradictory for a long-time Holmesian but in this instance that extra added Holmes feels more like an afterthought. The set pieces are as brilliantly zany as the last and the stunts just as impressive but the core mystery is to throw away with the solution coming in a bink-and-you’ll-miss-it moment that is far too key to treat so flippantly.
Stephen Fry gives us bizarrely buffoonish Mycroft who acts more as comic relief than the man who “is the British government [...] the most indispensable man in the country.” (BRU) Presumably his reinvention as a nudist in an era that has become the byline for prudish British stuffiness is a device to show just how out of the ordinary the Holmes brothers are and that Mycroft is just as, if not, weirder than Sherlock. Noomi Rapace’s character finds herself sidelined and very quickly reduced to setting up one of the major gags and it feels very much a waste of her and her character, perhaps they’re planning to develop her further in a later film. Where Rapace’s character suffers, Mary (Kelly Reilly) is elevated to codebreaker and plays an integral part in the final solution. Jared Harris makes for a refreshingly young Moriarty and his confrontation with Downey Jr is clever but overplayed.
None of these criticisms stop it from being an enjoyable film, it might be narrative mess and rely too much on overplayed gags but the pacing is fast, the editing flash and the score is as brilliant as the last. The film is a fun romp and hopefully they’ll return the original format for the inevitable third instalment.
It’s been a long time…
It’s been an inexcusably long time since I updated (I blame Christmas).
Mark Gatiss has come on board as patron and sponsor of the Undershaw Preservation Trust, joining Peter Egan, Philip Franks and Stephen Fry as well as other noted people who have spoken out against the proposed redevelopment of Undershaw. You can lend your support through their Facebook page and by joining them by writing to Mary Orton (Chief Executive) or Matthew Evans (Chief Planning Officer) at: Waverley Borough Council, Council Offices, The Burys, Godalming, Surrey, GU7 1HR.
Anthony Horowitz (of the Alex Ryder books fame… although I like his comic stories best 
) announced at the Sherlock Holmes Society dinner that he is going to write a new Holmes story. I imagine this is a case of following in the footsteps of Sebastian Faulks (James Bond) and Eoin Colfer (Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy) in the trend to add to franchises, which I think is a good thing – there needs to be more well-written Holmes in the world.
In film news, we know that Stephen Fry will be playing Mycroft in the as yet untitled ‘Sherlock Holmes 2’ and we’ve also seen a few first glimpses of the production. Release date is still scheduled for December 16th.
Modern 'Sherlock' will be back
This isn’t new news, in fact it’s been around the ‘net for… well, awhile but I’ve been busy and haven’t really had time to update. I am planning to write up a review of ‘The Secret of Sherlock Holmes’, my thought on the modern series and maybe write up some of my Canonical musings. No promises though
Jay Hunt, the BBC One Controller has confirmed that ‘Sherlock’ will be back with three 90minute episodes in late 2011.
A bit of sad news as well I’m afraid, Bernard Davies – a long time member and former chairman of the Sherlock Holmes Society of London passed away on the 21st September. He will be much missed.
'A Study in Pink' – 28.5% audience share!
The BBC’s new series ‘Sherlock’ is certainly proving very popular, at lot of my work colleagues are enjoying it and it’s getting a lot of press.
According to ‘The Guardian’, the first episode ‘A Study in Pink’ (wasn’t without it’s flaws, but I thoroughly enjoyed it) got more viewers than the Tom Cruise edition of ‘Top Gear’ (I’d rather walk across hot coals naked than watch anything featuring that boorish oaf Clarkson and the morally corrupt Cruise!) apparently ‘Sherlock’ received seven million viewers gaining 28.5% of the audience share – let’s hope that those figures keep up for tonight’s episode!
Incidentally, you can visit Sherlock’s website ‘The Science of Deduction‘ and read John’s blog.
'The Secret of Sherlock Holmes'
After the early closure of ‘The Fantastics’, the Duchess Theatre in London is once again playing host to a Sherlock Holmes play (last time it was the spoof ‘Hound of the Baskervilles’ by Peoplelikeus… which was awesome). Peter Egan and Robert Daws take on the roles of Holmes and Watson in Jeremy Paul’s 1988 play, ‘The Secret of Sherlock Holmes’ directed by Robin Herfold (the guy who directed ‘The Woman in Black’). Previews start on the 15th July with the show opening on the 20th July – ‘The Fantastics’ was originally booked into 4th September so it’s possible that this is planning a three month run at least.
Source: The Stage
News of the Moment
I haven’t posted much in the way of Holmes news recently, it’s not because there hasn’t been any it’s more that they’ve been bits and bobs, nothing worthy of a single blog post. Also, I’ve been persuaded to take part in a Sherlock Holmes eggheads style quiz at the Sherlock Holmes Society AGM in a few weeks… lots of revising!
Anyway, here’s the news.
Robert Downey Jr dropped a few hints about the Sherlock Holmes sequel (and who honesty thought that there wasn’t going to be one?), apparently there’s scenes in Paris and Switzerland. I wonder if Holmes is going to “die” at the beginning and we’re going to a film that deals with what is going on with Holmes separately to newly married mourning Watson before reuniting them at the end to defeat the big bad.
Something that I am very excited about is the announcement that the Muppets are doing Sherlock Holmes! I’ve always wanted them to do it… fair enough this is in comic format and it stars Fozzie as Watson and Gonzo as Holmes.
Finally, Frogware (creators of various Sherlock Holmes games, most recently Sherlock Holmes vs. Jack the Ripper) have released a teaser trailer for their next venture titled ‘The Testament of Sherlock Holmes’.
