Sherlock: The Abominable Bride (2016)

Directed by: Douglas Mackinnon | 89 minutes | crime, drama | Actors: Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman, Una Stubbs, Rupert Graves, Mark Gatiss, Andrew Scott, Louise Brealey, Amanda Abbington, Jonathan Aris, Yasmine Akram, David Nellist, Catherine McCormack, Tim McInnerny, Natasha O’Keeffe, Tim Barlow, Gerald Kyd, Daniel Fearn, Stephanie Hyam, Damian Samuels, Charles Furness, Adam Greaves-Neal

Fans had to wait three years for Sherlock Season 4; especially because of the busy work schedule of Benedict Cumberbatch, who has appeared in many films in recent years. Fortunately, in the meantime – broadcast on January 1, 2016 – there was a bandage on the wound in the form of ‘Christmas special’ ‘The Abominable Bride’, a stand-alone episode that, in addition to its very own character, has some surprising revelations. features certain well-known characters and thus partly works as a teaser for the upcoming season. The most characteristic feature of ‘The Abominable Bride’ – the ‘twist’, if you will – however remains its own setting, or rather: time to act. Instead of the ‘normal’, updated Sherlock that we have known for years now, we are presented with the original, traditional Sherlock, that from the Victorian nineteenth century. Actually the perfect change from the regular series, while you still get to see the well-known performances – and actors. In short, adventurous and safe at the same time. A case of, as the Americans would say, ‘having your cake and eating it too’.

The point is that this expression actually expresses an impossibility. You can’t eat on both sides; you have to make a choice. The question is whether it would indeed not have been possible here, but the fact is that not everything works equally well in this cheerful mix of times, ideas and characters. ‘The Abominable Bride’ is certainly worth a look, but it didn’t become a nail-biter or an extremely intelligent story. On the other hand, the relationship between Watson and Sherlock is – eventually – strengthened in an interesting way. And that there is a lot of humor present, often the result of references to or contrasts with parallels in Sherlock’s modern timeline (the usual seasonal episodes). The episode is ultimately a funny curiosity, a nice ‘what if’ for the makers and with the bonus of an intriguing connection with the present.

The makers didn’t just give Sherlock a new case, but simply in a different time. No, the nice thing is that they partly made it into a kind of remake or reboot of the first episode of (the modern) Sherlock. So we see Sherlock and Watson meet for the first time, but in 1895. Watson comes back from another war and he doesn’t see Sherlock in a laboratory fumbling a corpse with his belt (to see how long after death scars or welts can still be seen), but somewhere in a dungeon. Mary also makes her appearance, but her role is – at least initially – significantly less active and important. This is in line with the role relationship at the time, and is emphasized in order to make the contrast with the present (or the contemporary interpretation of Sherlock) clear. In part also for comic effect. Like in the scene where Sherlock and Watson are approached on a case in Baker Street and suddenly the two of them walk out the door. “’But,’ asks Mary, somewhat crestfallen, ‘isn’t there anything I can do then?’ To which Watson approaches her, slightly paternally, and says, “Sure, because when we come back we’ll be hungry.” And with a quick caress of the underside of her chin, he takes off, leaving Mary disappointed. Well, that’s how it went then.

Another element that makes you notice that they are ‘not in Kansas anymore’ is of course the clothing; Sherlock no longer has his sturdy raincoat with a stand-up collar, but a fabric overcoat, with of course the traditional, characteristic Sherlock hat. Only the pipe is still missing. Furthermore, Watson has a big curly moustache, there are no cars but Sherlock and Watson travel by carriage or train, and there were smartphones – or regular phones – but people had to send each other messages via telegram and simply get information from the newspaper. To a certain extent, the choice of story is also quite old-fashioned: a murder case that relies on superstition and a hint of magic and hocus focus, which at the time were undoubtedly much more comprehensible (although a program like ‘Mindf*ck’ makes it clear that you can make anyone doubt reality quite easily) That is both an advantage and a disadvantage. The advantage is that this ghost story gives the makers the chance to go wild with a creepy atmosphere full of darkness, misty fields, scary sounds and characters who are left alone somewhere while the possible killer – perhaps a ghost – is lurking. The downside is that the episode – or at least the denouement – has a tad Scooby Doo and Hercule Poirot-esque. So somewhat bland. Also, the underlying motivations of the killer are not equally credible in everything. So there is definitely tension.

Another less point is that ultimately too little time is spent on the (backgrounds of the) case to be solved. Oddly enough, Sherlock seems to know the solution halfway through the episode and seemingly just quits. Then the characters occupy themselves with other matters for a while, until the handling of the case becomes necessary again and the focus returns to this. Part of the problem is that different agendas are followed. ‘The Abominable Bride’ is not a straight forward (old-fashioned) Sherlock story, but apparently there must also be a connection with the current Sherlock and Watson. This results in a multitude of references and transitions, which in the long run feel a bit tiring.

At the same time, the added value is also clear. The references to the present provide interesting floors; of Sherlock’s psyche, of the relationship between Sherlock and Watson and of (the intelligence of) Mary. It will also do the viewer good to see a well-known and beloved character return in this episode and to see certain things in (a different) perspective. ‘The Abominable Bride’ may be a ‘separate’ episode, but it cannot be called completely independent because of this. In addition, the episode itself – despite the lack of focus and a really intriguing case – is just very amusing, with nice style forms and a charming glimpse into the time and world of the ‘real’ Sherlock. Oh, and did we mention that Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman are (again) very good at this? For these roles and as a duo it is a match made in heaven. In other words, fan or not: just watch!