SHERLOCK HOLMES ON MASTERPIECE: CONFUSION CONFOUNDED

     This past week saw the reappearance of Sherlock Homes on PBS' Masterpiece Anthology Series. It was just the thing to bolster viewers' moods after surviving three months of winter. Of course, Sherlock Holmes is good any time and place, providing you are willing to take on the program's diverse challenges: its intricate production elements, idiosyncratic characters, plot surprises, ambiguous themes and odd questions about Sherlock that begin to emerge as the series progresses. And oh, yes, the surrealistic touches that make all the challenges just plain complicated. The last TV version staring Jeremy Brett ( 1984 - 1994 ) was entertaining and fun to watch, while maintaining its suspenseful aspects, but it wasn't complicated. We didn't wonder what something meant long after the episode was over. 

     That is not the case with the current version staring Benedict Cumberbatch ( The actor's unusual name suggests the series's complexity,)  The complications with the current  episode started with trying to figure out the narrative: was this a new plot, a rerun, or a mixture of the two formats. Titled "The Abominable Bride," the plot points were easy to identify as an old episode and one of the series' most successful. Following the primary scenes which resembled flashbacks was not that difficult, and yet it became apparent that there were other alternating flashbacks concerning Sherlock's dreams and travels that made us question what we were seeing.

     In a nutshell, understanding what was going on required deciding the possible dislocation of the scenes, the often lack of cause and effect, and our trying to remember whether we had seen  these parts before. Added to these issues was the use of time. Were we watching the past, present or future? Confusion reigned, pure and simple. Now we get to a central question: does it really matter if we can follow this kind of narrative ( or  non-narrative ) or not? Perhaps it does matter, since it  might make us feel better to label the plot progression as Surrealism if we wish to do so, realizing that we are not stupid because we are confused. We should take Sherlock's advice when he comments about the events: "It doesn't make sense because it isn't real." It appears that Sherlock is as confused as the viewer.

     That settled, are there other questions we  might begin to answer in this episode that would make us less perplexed? For example, this critic has been haunted by Sherlock's sexuality from the beginning which is exactly what the producers wanted. In an interview with Cumberbatch, the actor (speaking for his character) admitted he was not a virgin, having had a sexual encounter with a female protagonist, Irene Adler. But that is not the haunting part. 

      The intriguing  issue is whether Sherlock is bisexual or homosexual. And is it James Moriarty who is the object of his desire ( not John Watson)? This conclusion sounds simplistic and may very well be, but can we forget a brief image of  Sherlock and Moriarty exchanging a brief kiss in a long- past episode. In this current episode, Moriarty says to Sherlock while visiting his apartment, "You have a surprisingly comfortable bed," admitting he had gone into the accommodations several times when Sherlock was  absent.

     Did Moriarty's statement have sexual overtones? Perhaps, but only if the viewer is looking for it.

     One comment indicating the pair's connection is not ambiguous, however.  It's when the Professor says to Sherlock, "Every time you stumble, I am there." And later on, he adds, " At the end, it's always you and me." While it's easy to assume that this is not necessarily hidden declarations of love, it may simply be the realization that they know each other very well. After all, Sherlock says in a parting statement, " I know exactly what he'll ( Moriarty ) do next." 

     It seems that Sherlock and Moriarty are inside each other's skin. They are  bonded together forever. Isn't that love?