Reviewed: Sherlock - The Sign of Three

The second story in 2014's Sherlock quick-fire battery of episodes is likely to once again bring views that point to its triumphs and failings.

The Sign of Three jumps several months from the opening episode and to the aftermath of John Watson's marriage to Mary. Holmes is given the task of being the Best Man and the episode largely revolves around his difficulties in coming up with a suitable speech that doesn't feel self-serving but also conveys the genuine  respect he has for his partner. While we don't see the ceremony, the reception - and the flashbacks leading up to it - provide a montage-laden backdrop to the realisation that there may be a murderous game afoot at the matrimonial celebration... 

There's a danger when accusing a show of being too smug when it is, after all,  about a smug character known for his legendary smugness. It took the mighty acting weight of Hugh Laurie and nearly a decade of American screentime to change ratings-hit House MD from the delightfully cranky and sardonic but brilliant doctor into a character who was merely annoying and self-destructive and shedding viewers like mysterious plague-of-the-week victims. The character that inspired him (House, Holmes.... think about it...) - or more accurately his showrunners - might be wise to consider audience-fatigue as well...

There's genuine fun to be had in The Sign of Three, but there's still the feeling that the show-runners are so busy patting themselves on the back for witty banter that they also need a hand with the secondary nature of the plotting. 

Cumberbatch's mannerisms and performance are great - the character of Sherlock needs an actor who can convey emotions and mood with just the flicker of an eye. Freeman gives Watson an understated power, the straight man of the pairing, but equally able to rise to any challenge given to him both as an actor and character.  But the 2014 writing has sacrificed deductive reasoning for sardonic dialogue, the kind of banter that is great for punctuation but less so when it makes up a majority of the script. It's great watching Moffat and Gatiss put the characters through their paces, but there's an undeniable truth that the master-detective is doing more strutting and snarking than deducing and detecting. The tics and tricks have taken over the 'tecs. 

The Empty Hearse was more about the reuniting of the Holmes and Watson pairing than the mystery they were onboard to solve. After such a long wait it seemed overtly-critical to not mark up the much-anticipated return on the wave of that modern-nostalgia. But while The Sign of Three had equally sparkling dialogue - both witty and poignant, it once again bore all the signs of an idea being written around an event rather than getting the mystery right and then adding the dialogue.  It's like laughing heartily at a joke, but finding the play less so. So far, this season of Sherlock feels like the 'sweeps' month of American television... the episodes where the conventional format is put aside for the sake of a big 'event' or guest-star... or presented like three episodes picked out of a longer run for the self-same reason. These, by their very nature and set-ups are being written as  'specials' NOT as episodes and therein lies a problem.

Perhaps the thing to note is the error in my earlier paragraph. The traditional Holmes was never really 'smug', so much as indifferent and even inherently frustrated that the average person was not an intelligent and as deductive as he... he didn't take enjoyment from that (as the Moffat/Cumberbatch incarnation seems to) but merely refused to make any more allowances for that than he needed to. He expected the police and the supporting cast to keep up rather than slow down to accomodate them. Moffat has claimed a simialr remit, claiming that kids can follow Doctor Who better than adults and that Sherlock demands a level of intelligence from the audience to keep-up. The catch with Sherlock is that, for the moment, the story doesn't require intelligence, it merely requires your unquestoning adoration of its main players.

Is it wrong to both enjoy the specatcle of the individual outing - a perfectly decent 'special' - but still ache for the innate, traditional mystery and  'cleverness' to be in the plot rather than merely in the stylistic flourish of its scripted snark?

Despite all the quibbles above, I liked The Sign of Three for what it gets right, but can't ignore what it gets wrong -  they're both worthy of note. There were solid laughs, some touching words (who knew that Sherlok would deliver such a great speech in the end?) and nods towards mythology - all of which should be given their due. But 2014's Sherlock is all about the the icon and I for one would like to see more of the detecting...