Sherlock season 3 review

The wait was over. We watched PBS' Sherlock after the NFL championships.

I'm disappointed.

   Steven Moffat's cleverness appears to have hit a wall. Don't get me wrong; he has well managed Dr. Who for all these years. I appreciate his genius: planning the steps of his series years in advance. The man is brilliant.
   The recent returns of both Dr. Who and Sherlock, however, left me wanting. Somehow the plots echo each other and are beginning to repeat like the doctor's allotted regenerations.
   Last night, Sherlock's creators Moffatt and Gatiss ventured into dangerous waters. First, when did Sherlock become a prankster? His breakthrough moment of trying to be kind to Molly (whether or not he understands kindness or compassion) is dwarfed by his heartless, self-absorbed and mean-spirited jokes on Dr. Watson.
   Second, the writers run the risk of Rory-ing Dr. Watson. Next to Donna Noble, Rory is my favorite of the doctor's companions. Rory is the noblest and most selfless of humans. (He's also a nurse, so that hooked me.) In Dr. Who, Moffat kills Rory over and over again. Rory is always the hero and always dies heroically. He can't be anything but a hero. This turns a splendid character into the worst of jokes.
   Sherlock's nasty trick with the bomb left me angry. I wasn't angry at the trick, but what the trick accomplished. Martin Freeman plays Watson's numbed grief convincingly. His tearful second goodbye worked adequately. Sherlock's victory over the bomb leaves Watson in a drizzled heap of helplessness with no heart left for rage. If ever there were a breakup that was justified, this was it. But then what happens? Dr. Watson falls into the co-dependent trap once again.
   In 90 minutes, I became an outside observer, tired of caring for Watson's pain.
  Martin Freeman is a fine comedic actor. I'm loving his role as Bilbo Baggins. He was perfect as Arthur Dent in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
   Sadly, Moffatt and Gatiss are turning Sherlock into just another clever British show. Worse, they are turning Dr. Watson into Arthur Dent.

The Evolution of a Princess

This is part of a facebook conversation I had some months ago. Vanity called, so I answered by putting it here.

In 20th century stories, old-style princesses were helpless objects in need of rescue. It makes even this conservative woman cringe.

Good news, however. Looking at fairy tales and princess types, The Princess Bride is a transitional style of love object/heroine. The princess bride is in need of rescue but is growing in self awareness. The movie is still about the hero's bravery and her beauty. Something is changing, however.

Fast forward to the princess in Enchanted. She is already self aware but comes of age in a world full of ugly, becoming self aware of the ills of society. The new fairy tale ending is that she becomes the rescuer, not only rescuing her man but some of society in the process.

And now we have Brave. Welcome to the 21st century. The Pixar princess is a selfish destroyer who becomes redeemer. On the first viewing, I hated it. Why did I waste my time and money to see it in 3D? Next time through (not in 3D), I realized how all the action pulled her back into relationship with her family. Humbled but healed, she arises more whole than the old-style princesses ever could.

mrfb