![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakI.e. people not Sherlock Holmes or Joan Watson. One of the reasons why I like Elementary is that by and large, it has a deep respect for its characters. Which isn't the same as taking them too seriously, by the way. Every one of us has their absurd moments, and often fictional characters who never have them are lacking some bit of fictional life, of three dimensionality. No, what I mean is that while of course the Elementary characters, with the exception of Joan, who is the co-lead, are supporting characters, which means they get less sceen time than the leads, and their stories aren't the driving story of the show, they nonetheless are written and played in a way that allows us to see they have a life outside of when it intermingles with the one of Sherlock Holmes, they have opinions and emotions that aren't about him (either positive or negative), and when they share a scene with him, the emotional weight of the scene isn't automatically given to Holmes.
This goes for both the regulars and the recurring characters. Alfonso, who ends up becoming Sherlock Holmes' sponsor (and Joan Watson's instructor in break-ins), has his own story of addiction and recovery, and we get to meet his own sponsor. Characters who only showed up in one episode so far - Ms Hudson, Lestrade and Rhys, Holmes' former drug dealer come to mind - nonetheless are given emotional background and problems beyond what connects them to Sherlock. Joan's mother, the son of her patient who died under her surgery, or her ex the drug addict managed to convey an entire wealth of WatsonThis doesn't always work (for me): I like Roger Rees as much as the next anglophile fangirl, but Alistair never quite caught on for me, which is why, as opposed to wanting more Ms Hudson, I don't feel frustration he hasn't shown up again yet. But it works more often than not, and with my ever increasing fondness for ensemble shows, this pleases me greatly.
The recurring character who while on screen only in two episodes nonetheless was built up, a la Harry Lime in The Third Man (if you haven't seen the film, Harry is talked about for about two thirds of the movie before he eventually shows up. His actual screen time isn't more than ten minutes in the last third, but between the clever build up and the casting of Orson Welles, it feels like much more), throughout the first season, and the impact is still felt in the second. I am talking, of course, of Jamie Moriarty/Irene Adler. Making Irene and Moriarty the same person - and the second gender switch after making Watson female - turned out to be one of the cleverest things Elementary did. Female Evil Masterminds are still rare (as Moriarty herself points out, one of the reasons why she gets away with using stooges is that no one questions the idea that the ruthless head of a criminal orginization would be male), and even rarer when presented not as cackling and crazy, but as coldly and profit-oriented. Now part of the whole point of Moriarty, in any incarnation, is to hold up a dark mirror to Holmes and be a genius level arch nemesis. Jamie Moriarty works as that - having taken the idea of exceptionalism by virtue of cleverness to its ultimate amoral conclusion -, but within the larger Elementary narrative, which puts such an emphasis on the way people connect and are able to support each other, it is incredibly fitting that in the s1 finalel, she's ultimately foiled (for now) not by Holmes but by Watson, and her own conviction that other than Holmes (whom she can handle), no "mundane" non-genius is able to outthink her.
Ultimately, however, a show stands and falls with its regulars, no matter how good the guest stars are. Which is why the treatment of the two other regulars who aren't leads, Gregson and Bell, is so important. Gregson does have an Arthur Conan Doyle counterpart (which, btw, is why I found it frustrating when Elementary started and people complained that he wasn't called Lestrade; these are two different characters in the ACD stories!), Bell does not, but either way, how Holmes and the regular police are shown interacting has become a key criterium for new Holmes adaptions to me. There is, of course, the premise: if you use Holmes as a character at all and it's not supposed to be a spoof, there needs to be a reason why the regular police bothers to consult him and isn't handling the cases on their own, given that's what they get paid for. Otoh, if the police are a bunch of bumbling fools, we're back back to the type of lone genius/stupid little people set up that is attacked acidly and memorably in the play Sleuth by Anthony "brother of Peter" Shaffer especially for the classism that usually goes with it.
Elementary takes care to not only present both Gregson and Bell as competent but also to give them different personalities, backstories and somewhat different relationships with Holmes & Watson. They're not interechangeable, and each of them brings something to the show I wouldn't want to miss. When the show starts, there is enormous respect between Gregson and Holmes, while Bell and Holmes start out as somewhat antagonistic, with Bell being given the role of prickly scepticism. Mid-first season, there is a serious fallout between Gregson and Holmes which it takes the rest of the season to recover from; during this time, Holmes approaches Bell when he needs to contact the NYPD. Bell has grown more tolerant of Holmes (and appreciative of the results Holmes and Watson bring) throughout the first half, but the second is when they start to get friendly, without Bell still being snarky when warranted. I think the difference is that while the show is careful never to use the word "father-son", given this Sherlock has daddy issues, Gregson has a bit of a paternal aura not just with Holmes but also Bell and Watson (this on one occasion did get patronizing, and she called him out on it in no times flat), whereas Bell's friendly sparring with Holmes and amiable nature towards Watson is sibling like.
(There is an obvious irony here in that both Bell and Holmes do have brothers whom they've had considerable differences with, to put it mildly.)
Gregson and Bell both take being a cop - and not a vigilante - very seriously; Bell, however, because of his criminal brother and possibly also because he's had to live with racism and clichés about black men all his life, early on gives the impression of feeling the need of something to prove. Their respective fallouts with Holmes mirror the somewhat different relationships they have with him. In early s1, the scene where Holmes comes clean to Gregson about having been an addict only to find out Gregson already knew established both mutual respect and affection between the characters; only two or so episodes later, there was a case of police corruption in which Gregson was a suspect, and which showed that while Holmes worked had to prove this wasn't true (it wasn't), he also would have turned a blind eye towards Gregson's activities if it had been. It was very much a mutual "loved I not honour more" in that relationship, and thus their mid-season fallout was when Holmes not only behaved unethically but also apologized in a way that made it clear he didn't see/want to admit what was wrong to begin with. Gregson's reaction was a variation of "I wonder whether I even know you", and the "I'm disappointed in you" subtext was palpable.
Meanwhile, Bell was able to take Holmes almost-revenge killing in stride, possibly because at that point, he didn't have that high an opinion of Holmes to begin with. Playing intermediary between Holmes and Gregson/the NYPD, however, put him into a position to get to know Holmes better (and for Holmes and Watson to help him once the matter of his brother became relevant). When Bell, early in s2, makes fun of Holmes by saying "yes, we never solved cases before you came", it's good-natured snark and comes with affection as opposed to the acerbic retort it would have been at the start of s1, and at the start of the episode last week that will end with Bell expressing the wish to not see Holmes again (privatedly, not professionally), they talk animatedly about fencing lessons. Nor does Holmes behave unethically in the series of circumstances that lead to Bell's life threatening injury with might or might not leave him with permanent nerve damage. He's simply his high handed (and yet also concerned for justice) self, the guy Bell has always known. And his skill at apologizing has improved; the apology to Bell near the end is miles above that abysmal first attempt to Gregson last season, and you can tell that this time, he means every word, and he knows what was wrong.
However, Bell is still facing a possible life time handicap and with that, the loss of the job that he loves. And while putting the greater good first when the Comissioner asked for his opinion on whether or not the NYPD should continue to work with Holmes, he's not in a mood to make Holmes feel better (or less guilty). This is less clear cut than the s1 Gregson-Holmes argument - where Holmes clearly was in the wrong - , and you could just as well interpret it as Bell being unfair because he's hurt and needs someone to blame. But the point the show also makes is this: these are his feelings. (And his life that's got a great likelihood of having been ruined.) He's not obliged to make Holmes feel better by being saintly and forgiving, as in a great many other stories, he would be. If the subtext of the mid s1 Gregson fallout was a paternal "I'm disappointed in you", the one I felt in the scene with Bell and Holmes was very much a fraternal "yes, this is your fault, GO AWAY".
Will it last? Tomorrow I'll know (a bit) more, I suppose, but I suspect it might, for a while. Though if this season's newest aquisition proves anything, it's that brothers always come back.
This goes for both the regulars and the recurring characters. Alfonso, who ends up becoming Sherlock Holmes' sponsor (and Joan Watson's instructor in break-ins), has his own story of addiction and recovery, and we get to meet his own sponsor. Characters who only showed up in one episode so far - Ms Hudson, Lestrade and Rhys, Holmes' former drug dealer come to mind - nonetheless are given emotional background and problems beyond what connects them to Sherlock. Joan's mother, the son of her patient who died under her surgery, or her ex the drug addict managed to convey an entire wealth of WatsonThis doesn't always work (for me): I like Roger Rees as much as the next anglophile fangirl, but Alistair never quite caught on for me, which is why, as opposed to wanting more Ms Hudson, I don't feel frustration he hasn't shown up again yet. But it works more often than not, and with my ever increasing fondness for ensemble shows, this pleases me greatly.
The recurring character who while on screen only in two episodes nonetheless was built up, a la Harry Lime in The Third Man (if you haven't seen the film, Harry is talked about for about two thirds of the movie before he eventually shows up. His actual screen time isn't more than ten minutes in the last third, but between the clever build up and the casting of Orson Welles, it feels like much more), throughout the first season, and the impact is still felt in the second. I am talking, of course, of Jamie Moriarty/Irene Adler. Making Irene and Moriarty the same person - and the second gender switch after making Watson female - turned out to be one of the cleverest things Elementary did. Female Evil Masterminds are still rare (as Moriarty herself points out, one of the reasons why she gets away with using stooges is that no one questions the idea that the ruthless head of a criminal orginization would be male), and even rarer when presented not as cackling and crazy, but as coldly and profit-oriented. Now part of the whole point of Moriarty, in any incarnation, is to hold up a dark mirror to Holmes and be a genius level arch nemesis. Jamie Moriarty works as that - having taken the idea of exceptionalism by virtue of cleverness to its ultimate amoral conclusion -, but within the larger Elementary narrative, which puts such an emphasis on the way people connect and are able to support each other, it is incredibly fitting that in the s1 finalel, she's ultimately foiled (for now) not by Holmes but by Watson, and her own conviction that other than Holmes (whom she can handle), no "mundane" non-genius is able to outthink her.
Ultimately, however, a show stands and falls with its regulars, no matter how good the guest stars are. Which is why the treatment of the two other regulars who aren't leads, Gregson and Bell, is so important. Gregson does have an Arthur Conan Doyle counterpart (which, btw, is why I found it frustrating when Elementary started and people complained that he wasn't called Lestrade; these are two different characters in the ACD stories!), Bell does not, but either way, how Holmes and the regular police are shown interacting has become a key criterium for new Holmes adaptions to me. There is, of course, the premise: if you use Holmes as a character at all and it's not supposed to be a spoof, there needs to be a reason why the regular police bothers to consult him and isn't handling the cases on their own, given that's what they get paid for. Otoh, if the police are a bunch of bumbling fools, we're back back to the type of lone genius/stupid little people set up that is attacked acidly and memorably in the play Sleuth by Anthony "brother of Peter" Shaffer especially for the classism that usually goes with it.
Elementary takes care to not only present both Gregson and Bell as competent but also to give them different personalities, backstories and somewhat different relationships with Holmes & Watson. They're not interechangeable, and each of them brings something to the show I wouldn't want to miss. When the show starts, there is enormous respect between Gregson and Holmes, while Bell and Holmes start out as somewhat antagonistic, with Bell being given the role of prickly scepticism. Mid-first season, there is a serious fallout between Gregson and Holmes which it takes the rest of the season to recover from; during this time, Holmes approaches Bell when he needs to contact the NYPD. Bell has grown more tolerant of Holmes (and appreciative of the results Holmes and Watson bring) throughout the first half, but the second is when they start to get friendly, without Bell still being snarky when warranted. I think the difference is that while the show is careful never to use the word "father-son", given this Sherlock has daddy issues, Gregson has a bit of a paternal aura not just with Holmes but also Bell and Watson (this on one occasion did get patronizing, and she called him out on it in no times flat), whereas Bell's friendly sparring with Holmes and amiable nature towards Watson is sibling like.
(There is an obvious irony here in that both Bell and Holmes do have brothers whom they've had considerable differences with, to put it mildly.)
Gregson and Bell both take being a cop - and not a vigilante - very seriously; Bell, however, because of his criminal brother and possibly also because he's had to live with racism and clichés about black men all his life, early on gives the impression of feeling the need of something to prove. Their respective fallouts with Holmes mirror the somewhat different relationships they have with him. In early s1, the scene where Holmes comes clean to Gregson about having been an addict only to find out Gregson already knew established both mutual respect and affection between the characters; only two or so episodes later, there was a case of police corruption in which Gregson was a suspect, and which showed that while Holmes worked had to prove this wasn't true (it wasn't), he also would have turned a blind eye towards Gregson's activities if it had been. It was very much a mutual "loved I not honour more" in that relationship, and thus their mid-season fallout was when Holmes not only behaved unethically but also apologized in a way that made it clear he didn't see/want to admit what was wrong to begin with. Gregson's reaction was a variation of "I wonder whether I even know you", and the "I'm disappointed in you" subtext was palpable.
Meanwhile, Bell was able to take Holmes almost-revenge killing in stride, possibly because at that point, he didn't have that high an opinion of Holmes to begin with. Playing intermediary between Holmes and Gregson/the NYPD, however, put him into a position to get to know Holmes better (and for Holmes and Watson to help him once the matter of his brother became relevant). When Bell, early in s2, makes fun of Holmes by saying "yes, we never solved cases before you came", it's good-natured snark and comes with affection as opposed to the acerbic retort it would have been at the start of s1, and at the start of the episode last week that will end with Bell expressing the wish to not see Holmes again (privatedly, not professionally), they talk animatedly about fencing lessons. Nor does Holmes behave unethically in the series of circumstances that lead to Bell's life threatening injury with might or might not leave him with permanent nerve damage. He's simply his high handed (and yet also concerned for justice) self, the guy Bell has always known. And his skill at apologizing has improved; the apology to Bell near the end is miles above that abysmal first attempt to Gregson last season, and you can tell that this time, he means every word, and he knows what was wrong.
However, Bell is still facing a possible life time handicap and with that, the loss of the job that he loves. And while putting the greater good first when the Comissioner asked for his opinion on whether or not the NYPD should continue to work with Holmes, he's not in a mood to make Holmes feel better (or less guilty). This is less clear cut than the s1 Gregson-Holmes argument - where Holmes clearly was in the wrong - , and you could just as well interpret it as Bell being unfair because he's hurt and needs someone to blame. But the point the show also makes is this: these are his feelings. (And his life that's got a great likelihood of having been ruined.) He's not obliged to make Holmes feel better by being saintly and forgiving, as in a great many other stories, he would be. If the subtext of the mid s1 Gregson fallout was a paternal "I'm disappointed in you", the one I felt in the scene with Bell and Holmes was very much a fraternal "yes, this is your fault, GO AWAY".
Will it last? Tomorrow I'll know (a bit) more, I suppose, but I suspect it might, for a while. Though if this season's newest aquisition proves anything, it's that brothers always come back.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-12 04:31 pm (UTC)I really like all your thoughts on this. One of my favourite things about the show is that it's not Holmes Is Always Right and Every One Else (Including Watson) Should Worship Him, which other adaptations have slid into. Though I always liked the Bert Coules radio plays for the fun they had with that, and what Lestrade thought of it all, assuming that this was what happened, and Watson wrote the story versions that we all read.
Always expected there to be more fallout from the thing with Gregson, maybe that'll happen someday.
I think that Holmes' ethics, or lack thereof, still touched the fall out with Bell. He did steal the guy's phone, and he had just spent several days glibly lying on stand, of which I imagine Bell was well aware. I think that tainted their relationship, right then. It wasn't just Bell standing up for the guy who got him shot. It was Bell standing up for the guy who got him shot, who was also not upholding the law as well as might be. IMO, anyway.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-13 07:05 pm (UTC)Good point re: the naming of Marcus Bell!
no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 12:39 am (UTC)Speaking of tainting the relationship: Holmes avoided coming to see Bell in the hospital. And then when he did finally show up, he didn't acknowledge (or apologize for!) how long it took him to visit Bell, he talked about his own troubles, he didn't ask after Bell's, and he as good as insulted him with money. Honestly, I don't think it's fair to say that the falling out between them could or should be interpreted as Bell being unfair or looking for someone to blame.
no subject
Date: 2013-12-16 12:41 am (UTC)