courtesy: http://www.popmatters.com/review/sherlock-the-abominable-bride/
Sherlock: “The Abominable Bride” created a polarizing moment within the television series’ viewership. Whereas some critics (e.g., in a particularly scathingTelegraph review) derided series’ co-creators Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss (or Mofftiss, in fan usage) for a confusing, convoluted script, other reviewers (e.g., a highly positive review in TVLine) praised them for their daring experiment in storytelling and lovingly crafted individual scenes. The range of informal reviews from fans mirrored this dichotomy.
Since the January 1 broadcast premiere of “The Abominable Bride” on the BBC in the UK and on PBS in the US, tweets have summarized widely diverse audience reaction to the much-anticipated special episode. In the two years sinceseason/series three debuted, many fans followed #Setlock tweets reporting what went on during filming in public places, watched a series of promotional trailers, and finally, finally tuned in (or streamed) the episode on New Year’s night. Given so much anticipation and a high level of fan expectations, it’s not surprising that “The Abominable Bride” became a trending topic that reflected viewers’ immediate responses. Some proclaimed it a travesty; others deemed it brilliant. Once many viewers had a chance to watch the episode a second time (or more), however, the response on Twitter became more positive. The number of comments online, however, had not escaped public attention. A January 6 tweet from actor Curtis Armstrong (@curtisisbooger) perhaps best summed up casual viewers’ conclusion about the “discussion” raging online about the meaning or entertainment value of the latest Sherlock installment: “Sometimes I thank God for what an uncritical dork I am. I can luxuriate in the thrills & weirdness of #Sherlockspecial w/ none of the rage!”
The plot, at first, seemed simple. In 1895, Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch) and John Watson (Martin Freeman) are brought into a frightening murder mystery by Scotland Yard inspector Lestrade (Rupert Graves). On her wedding anniversary, Emelia Ricoletti (Natasha O’Keeffe) publicly shoots herself in the head, but not before terrorizing the neighborhood with shrieks of “You!” while firing a shotgun toward passersby. While her body’s supposedly in the morgue, Emelia hails a hansom cab to track down her husband (Gerald Kyd), who conveniently staggers from a Limehouse opium den in time to be accosted by his dead wife. She taunts him in the street in front of witnesses before handily using her shotgun to dispose of him—and disappears. Holmes gleefully takes the case, because it offers a delightful mix of street theater, murder-suicide, and “ghostly” deeds. Months later, when the bride again rises from the dead to murder men, Holmes is back on the case, setting a trap for the bride. Alas, she outwits Holmes and Watson and escapes, leaving behind another corpse. Up to this point, the Victorian setting provides plenty of opportunities for Holmes—wearing the expected Inverness cape and deerstalker—to have both adventures and man-to-man conversations with dear friend Watson. It’s a pleasantly Gothic outing.
But then the story shifts. Instead of Holmes truly being in the Victorian period, he’s Sherlock’s mental construct of himself. Sherlock, during his brief exile after shooting Charles Augustus Magnussen (Lars Mikkelsen), is on a drug-fueled trip deep inside his mind palace. He needs to figure out how Emelia Ricoletti could commit suicide in front of witnesses and return from the dead to create more mayhem, which Jim Moriarty (Andrew Scott) has also apparently done. By solving the Victorian murder mystery, he can determine if Moriarty is really dead. The episode then alternates between present and past until Sherlock, hastily recalled from exile, can survive his overdose and decide once and for all what happened to Moriarty.
The much-promoted Victorian-set holiday special seemed design to spark opposing opinions. On Twitter and within the comments sections of online television reviews, some viewers adored the insights into Sherlock’s mind, savored the interplay between Victorian Holmes and Watson, or enjoyed the scares of Gothic horror. However, nearly an equal number of viewers noted their displeasure with a plot flipping between the present and 1895, as well as between reality and the fantasy playing out in Sherlock’s mind. While the television viewing experience continues to generate divergent responses from communities of fans or critics, the communal experience of viewing Sherlock in a cinema more clearly illustrates the specific audience within the larger viewership for which “The Abominable Bride” is best suited and, quite likely, to whom it was designed to appeal most: long-time fans who enjoy analyzing each episode’s layers of meaning.
bucket books blog 