Are you a Cumberbitch?
Wednesday, February 8, 2012 at 8:09AM in Alexandra Sokoloff
If you know what I’m talking about, you know what I’m talking about. If you don’t, you’ve somehow been missing out on the biggest thing since Jesus. I mean, you know, since the Beatles.
So I’d like to talk today about the new Sherlock Holmes. (Hey, it’s crime fiction, isn’t it?) Those of you who know can just scream and faint in the background, there, while I fill the others in. And for the hopelessly straight men of Murderati, well, you’re just going to have to endure a little erotomania. It is, after all, coming on Valentine’s Day.
Once in a while there is in film or television or music what has become known in technology as a Black Swan. Something that defies all expectations at the same time meeting all the expectations you never actually knew you had. And that's a good enough definition for the Masterpiece Mystery! TV series, Sherlock.
The series is brilliant – a redefining of Sherlock Holmes exactly as he would present himself in modern London, complete with e mailing, texting, GPS—and blogging by his faithful Boswell, John Watson, a veteran doctor who was wounded in Afghanistan, just as the original Watson was (I mean, when something is right, it’s right, right?). And Sherlock is as he is depicted, an unfettered and unrepentant autistic-slash-high-functioning sociopath.
And a rock god.
An unfettered and unrepentant autistic-slash-high-functioning sociopath of a rock god.
The tagline for the show is “Smart is the new sexy.” And that pretty much sums it up. This is not just a modern imagining of one of the - or is it THE? -world’s most popular and enduring detectives. It’s a sexual fantasy for smart people. And may I say it’s about bloody time we got one?
This is the unlikely catnip at the heart of this show:
A truly incredibly actor with the unlikely name of Benedict Cumberbatch (who is now banking upwards of hundreds of thousands of dollars, or at least tens of thousands, for every time he was ever called Cumberbitch as a kid. It’s revenge of the geeks in spades.).
You really need to see the real-time reactions of women, girls, men, boys, dogs, horses to this actor to understand the physiological phenomenon going on here. There are fan groups that call themselves Cumberbitches. There are cat fights over him on Facebook (think Dionysus, Maenads...) Mention his name or the word Sherlock to a girl (or boy) of fifteen or a woman (or man) of fify and you will get the same helpless, delirious giggling. That’s actually part of the appeal, the group experience, the knowing that you are not the only one dissolving into goo over this man and this show. And if you are not a fan, you might as well move to Antarctica, because you are going to be seeing Cumberbatch in every movie that Hollywood can cram him into for the next fifty years (fortunately, I think he’s beyond smart enough to choose his roles and limit his exposure.)
I admit that I become flushed and breathless when he launches into one of his twenty-pages-in-a-minute and-a-half-monologues about who ate what pastry at which Tube stop after whichever assignation with whatever coworker that is a trademark of the show. But my actual fantasies about Cumberbatch are not exactly sexual; they’re more about going back to school in lighting design just to be able to properly light the man’s face. These are the cheekbones that launched a thousand ships. He is literally golden-eyed. And I say “man”, but one of the guilty pleasures of the show is that this is a thirty-five-year-old man who looks and acts like the world’s most precocious fourteen-year-old; you feel as if you’re committing a felony just watching it.
One of the delicious ironies of the show is that all of this extreme sexual response from TV fans all over the world is occurring over a character who is not only massively socially incompetent but patently asexual. The character is explicitly referred to as a virgin, although the gay subtext is – not subtextual at all. This is a love story. But still, clearly unconsummated. (Or is it? It's your fantasy, after all...)
All this sexual confusion I think is one of the delights of the show. It is polymorphous perversity in the flesh. Well, in the flesh on screen. The creators even make Doyle’s Irene Adler character a dominatrix (not the world’s most convincing one, in my opinion, but anything further I could say on the subject will only get me in trouble so I’ll refrain) who is just as fritzed out by Sherlock the virgin as he is by her.
But there's more to it than the sex, I swear. This is a truly perfect melding of an actor and a role. Cumberbatch is a star, period - I loved him as Stephen Hawking in Hawking, he conveyed not just brilliance but a heartbreaking sweetness and innocence as the young Hawking. But Sherlock is a career-defining role. It reminds me a bit of Cary Grant, before and after Hitchcock got hold of him. Grant was clearly one fine hunk of actor even in the fluffy romantic roles he did early in his career, but it was the darkness and edge and ambiguity that Hitchcock saw and encouraged (or should I say demanded?) in him that made him an iconic, archetypal movie star. (Take a look at Cumberbatch in Masterpiece's pre-Sherlock miniseries The Last Enemy. There are hints of Sherlock, there, in the irritated monologue the character finally explodes into on national television, the kind of monologue that makes you say THERE. Do THAT. Much more of THAT. Please forget the love plot and just let this guy talk, and visibly think, on screen.)
Clearly creator/writers (of Dr. Who fame) Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss (who also wonderfully portrays Sherlock’s fussy and hovering older brother Mycroft), have that masterful Hitchcockian understanding of the material and their star. They saw it, and they gave him what he needed. It's filmmaking collaboration in its most perfected state, the stuff that dreams (and smart people's sexual fantasies) are made on.
The writing is stellar, wicked and joyous and - I'll say it again, unrepentant; I’ve had whole years of my life that haven’t given me as much pleasure as the scene in which Sherlock compulsively corrects a convict’s grammar. (Well, I may be exaggerating JUST a bit, but that’s how it felt in the moment...)
And yes, there is a Team Watson (we have a representative among us, actually, if she wants to speak up), and I don’t at all mean to give Martin Freeman short shrift; he is the perfect, earthy, touchingly maternal counterpart to Sherlock (talk about catnip, I so LOVE that adenoidal British voice), and I’m also thrilled to have Rupert Graves as Detective Inspector Lestrade. (Graves is a former punk rocker I’ve loved since he made his sizzling acting debut as little brother Freddy in Merchant/Ivory/Jhabvala’s swoony Room with a View). I wasn’t quite as thrilled with Andrew Scott as little-boy-psychopath Moriarty in the first season, but he grew on me in season two; there was just a certain way he bared his teeth that was endearing enough to make me stop hating him for the two seconds required to commit to an arch villain.
You’ll notice I’m not expounding on the plot lines (I’m too busy designing lights over here....). I confess, it’s been a long time since I’ve read anything in the Sherlock canon, although it seems to me the second season is more true to the plot lines of the Sherlock stories I remember from my childhood than the first season. The episodes are not adaptations, but there are plenty of clever-to-brilliant references and homages for those in the know. The plots work just fine, and there are always wonderful setpieces (the Chinese circus setting in Episode 2(?) is truly dazzling), but it’s the character interaction, chemistry, and the dialogue that provide most of the breathtaking suspense. And to be perfectly honest, I’d have to watch every episode again to be able to focus on the plots because I simply DON'T CARE; I am way too busy being dazzled by - other things (and remember, I TEACH structure, I’m telling you, this is how bad it is!).
As for social and cultural relevance, Sherlock makes Asperger’s both normal and attractive, which in an age driven by minds like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg makes the whole show not just topical but inevitable. There is something uncannily true about the series. We KNOW this Sherlock; he is the natural, timeless, entirely present-tense incarnation of an immortal character.
He is US.
So— those of you who don’t know Sherlock like I know Sherlock, go treat yourself to a little Holmes crack, available on Netflix and Amazon and iTunes. I dare you not to get hooked.
And for all you Cumberbitches, pull up a chair, grab the riding crop, slap on a couple of nicotine patches and let’s dish. What is it about this show? What does it do for you?
And yes, let's hear about other perfect portrayals of classic characters, too.
- Alex
-----------------------------------------
Huntress Moon, an Amazon bestseller!
Reader Comments (73)
I binged last summer, and re-read most of the Holmes stories. For my money, Sherlock Holmes means foggy London streets, or mists swirling round the moors as Holmes and Watson search for the hound. Opium dens, horse-drawn cabs, gas lights, and all the atmosphere of a time past.
I've no plans to watch this show. No actor will ever come close to Jeremy Brett as the great detective. But then what do I know? I'm just a boring straight man heading for the South Pole.
"He looks a bit weird. Someone who might be detained under the Mental Health Act."
That's what makes this all so much fun!
But as a Holmes fan, I don't think you could NOT be impressed by the faithfulness of the show to the originals. I do understand what you mean about Brett, though.
As a lighting designer for nearly twenty years, we HATE people with cheekbones like that! The softboxes required to get under them, the kickers you need to get the rest of the face right, the hell we have getting a good eyelight on those boyos...you need almost a whole separate rig just for the one actor!
Funny post, brilliant show.
I didn't spoil anything, I hope!
And I can't think of another modernization of a classic character that really worked for me, offhand, so I've nothing to offer there.
Seriously, I'm so glad to know that I'm not the only one taken by suprise by my reaction to this show. And it's true: last week I lost track of the plot, and I didn't care much. Even swinging himself easily over a guardrail gets my heart a-thumping.
Thank you for this post...hehe, made me a little woozy. :-)
But when the script reminds us that Watson was (or still is) a soldier or allows us to understand that Watson only *seems* ordinary in comparison to the blazing brilliance of Sherlock Holmes and can fully hold his own -- Whew.
Which doesn't mean I don't deeply admire Mr. Cumberbatch's portrayal of one of my biggest literary crushes. And his cheekbones. And that *voice.*
But I don't count myself a Cumberbunny (nor a cougar -- the man was born in 1976, and the fact that I know this off the top of my head isn't relevant in the least, moving on). I simply think that he's one of those actors that steps into a role so fully (or allows it to step into him, haven't decided) that he isn't "Benedict Cumberbatch As Hawking" or "As Holmes" (or "As Smaug") but is simply Stephen Hawking. And Sherlock Holmes (and, possibly, Smaug).
The combination of these two actors *and* the partnership between their respective roles is amazing – you can almost hear the click. The characters might be at odds occasionally, but their abilities and personalities align in a way that is greater than the sum.
As for the subtext. . . While officially, I wish we could allow people of any gender and orientation to enjoy deeply platonic bonds on- or off-screen without automatically assuming there's romantic love or secret lust involved . . . I'll admit I've never been so tempted to write romance fanfiction *in my life.* And maybe one about Lestrade and Molly . . .
But more than the actors or the characters, I'm in love with the show itself. It's dazzling and poignant and twisted and evil and exploratory and dead clever. Sherlock Holmes is timeless, and the characters and stories do translate extremely well into the modern world. It helps that Mr. Moffat and Mr. Gatiss have been careful to remain as close to the source material as they can -- this is a labor of admiration and love for them, and it shows.
And I can't wait to see how they manage to pick up the pieces and start again next season.
(sorry, more post than comment -- once I start fangushing, it's hard to stop)
Richard, no one is more an admirer of the late Jeremy Brett than am I - but I promise you fogs of isolation and incomprehension swirl still through London's streets, hidden horrors yet reside behind drab facades, and - by heaven, man! - the spoor of the Giant Rat of Sumatra may be apprehended in *that* alley there, do we but observe.
These productions are simply protean. The sum is so much more than the total of the parts that I don't understand why BBC hasn't chosen to release the series theatrically. It seems no one told Moffat and Gatiss not to write movies for the small screen.
Cumberbatch's Holmes portrayal is a tour de force, yes - but it would be less resonant without the rebounding soundboard Watson of Martin Freeman, much more fully realized as a complete man - even the tale's true protagonist - than ever before. The good doctor is finally done his justice, even at that guardrail. It's Watson who is an heroic version of us on our best days. Holmes (and Moriarty) are Something Still Other.
Isn't it peculiar, though, that Asperger's behaviour and sociopathy have been such fertile ground for writers in our lifetime? Gregory House, Martin Ellingham (both based in part on Joseph Bell), even Hannibal Lector – for story purposes, must the Uebermensch be bound by empathic emptyness?
Thanks for that wonderful analysis! I couldn't agree with you more about Freeman's Watson being the true protagonist, and it's true that we can only really experience Sherlock through Freeman's empathy. And you're right about theatrical release.
Robson Green's Tony Hill in McDermid's Wire in the Blood is another Aspergers character - with empathy.
You know, I don't get this mass hysteria about sexual fantasies over hot male characters. I LOVE heroes. I have my fair share of crushes. But it's never really sexual. In fact, it's more of a I -wish-he'd-come-and-turn-my-life-life-around sort of fantasy, of stability, a guy to rock my socks. I'm a 23 year old and I can say I've never fantasized like that. I think it's weird, lol. What's wrong with real guys? :)
I can't speak for mass hysteria, I think it's quite rare. But sexual fantasies - well, I can tell you from my own experience and that of women friends that that might change for you around about age 28. Lots of things change around 28 for women, all for the better!
(Really, not a clue? Sometimes men PLAY dumb about these things....)
And, I don't know, it just just really weird to me fantasizing about someone I don't really know, sexually at least. Or maybe I'm too much of a prude. All of my hero fantasies are more of companionship and friendship and that sort of thing :)
Like I said, wait till around about 28 and see what happens. Of course, I wouldn't have believed it if someone had told me the same thing at 23.
Oh, and can I complain here about the bits that PBS cut out of the shows when they aired? This was one show where I gladly paid the money for the DVDs of Series 1 so that I could enjoy the shows in full as they were meant to be seen. And the commentary tracks are great fun, too. I look forward to the American DVD set of Series 2 being released so that I can see them all over again. (Oh, I mean for the first time, because they haven't been shown here yet. Not until May. So I couldn't have seen them yet and, magically, I already know that the second batch are even better than the first.)
Thanks.
So, I guess when I'm 28 and thinking of having sex with an actor, I'll remember YOU??? Umm, geez, thanks, Alex :////
LOL.
I am stunned at the conception of Sherlock with today's technology. It is EXACTLY like Sherlock would have done it were he extant today and the show conveys it perfectly.
Each show leaves me breathless at the writing, the execution and the incredible acting.
Netflix, you say? Fine then, I'll give it a try. When I get a minute.
Susan, I might have to do Downton here next post. Believe me, I can go on just about as long on Mr. Bates.
Have to respond though: Mr. Bates!!! The interesting thing about him is that he's about as opposite of Sherlock as you can go: loving, full of integrity, tortured in a soulful way. But, yep, he's another one!
Although not a great Freeman fan, I believe it's Watson's portrayal that makes Sherlock so convincing (and keeps him alive). I'll be interested in watching him as The Hobbit.