FILM REVIEW: Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho (1960)

 

"We all go a little mad sometimes."

There are very few directors who are considered a genius in the art of filmmaking. Some examples are legends such as Stephen Spielberg, Orson Wells, and Stanley Kubrick. This post is about another genius director, often referred to as "The Master of Suspense" Alfred Hitchcock. Known for numerous films such as The Birds (1963), Dial M for Murder (1954), and Rebecca (1940), his most famous work is perhaps Psycho, based on the 1959 novel of the same name by Robert Bloch. The film has become a classic, spawning numerous sequels, spinoffs, a remake, and most recently, a prequel TV series, although none of the other ones have been able to capture the audience like Psycho has.

The film, despite being made in 1960, is shot entirely in black and white; while the common belief is that this was done to replicate the looks of the classic Universal horror film of the 30s, the real reason is much simpler: Paramount refused to finance the film because they didn't like the script, and Hitchcock filmed the movie in black and white to cut costs (and a side result of that happened to be that the infamous shower scene was kept from being too gorey). I do think, however, that the film probably benefitted from it being black and white, as the simple lack of colors made many of the scenes much more suspensful and creepy than it might have been if it was in color.

The film uses numerous unexpected plot twists to great effect. The first twist is Janet Leigh's character, Marion Crane. At the time, Leigh was a major star in Hollywood and the film had essentially been advertised a "A Janet Leigh film" (even the poster has Janet Leigh front and centre with Anthony Perkins cast off to the side); with how much they were focus on Leigh's character stealing the money and running way, the assumption that everyone had (and I had as well) was that the movie was going to revolve mainly around her, which made it shocking when she is killed relatively early on in the film and the money she stole in just thrown away by Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), taking away (what was at that point) the main character and an extremely important plot point. Marion and the money essentially becomes a McGuffins, which is something that is used to kickstart or move the plot along but has absolutely no real importance in the final view of things; and true to form, the money never appears again or is mentioned as a plot point of particular importance.

The audience really loses a sense of direction with the famous shower scene, because our "point of view" protagonist character is dead and what the audience saw as the main plot point is just completely gone. When I first saw the movie, not knowing at all about the twist (somehow I had managed to miss what was one of the most famous movie twists of all time) or how the movie ended, I had no idea how the movie was going to go on; was the movie going to somehow continue Marion's story or was this going to be a slasher film with new victims showing up one after another? 

The film is continued with Marion's boyfriend Sam Loomis and her sister Lila (who gets married to each other apparently in the sequels), who believes that Norman killed Marion. Now of course, they are right, but they believe Norman killed her for the money (a perfectly reasonable conclusion and motive), when the audience knows Norman did not know about the money at all. So after the shower scene, the film turns into a murder mystery in a way, but with the viewers basically knowing how the murder happened and more or less the motivation for it (even if you don't know that Norman is his mother, you can still make the assumption that Norman's mother killed Marion because she was overprotective of her son or just jealous of a new female presence).

Norman Bates is such an interesting take on a serial killer. Psycho functions in many ways like a slasher movie in the veins of Halloween (The male protagonist of Psycho and Halloween are both named Sam Loomis, with Dr. Loomis of Halloween being named after Psycho's Sam Loomis) or Scream; although the body counts are much smaller and the same kind of horror and gore aspect aren't there, it has a dangerous, seemingly unstoppable, unknown serial killer with a knife and it does have more then one death and a big fight at the end, so you could argue that in a way Psycho functions very similar to a slasher movie. Typically, in a slasher movie, the killer is usually not very deep in character; the killers are always given a backstory and a general explanation as to why they're evil, but usually everything about the killer is revealed towards the end and throughout the movie the killer's interactions with the protagonists/victims are always violent and the killer rarely speaks or show much personality.

In comparison, Norman Bates is completely different; it was easy to have made Norman just an emotionless serial killer who murders and then just explain the split personality at the end as a wrap up to the killer like most movies tend to do. However, Norman is a deep and complex character that the audience see much of and maybe even come to like to some degree, at least at the beginning. Although Norman is disturbed like so many other serial killers are, Norman's disturbance is much more sympathetic; while not being his mother, Norman as a person is deeply lonely, socially awkward, and a fairly nice person who you can't help but feel bad for. Until the reveal, Norman is just seen mostly as a product of an abusive parent (which is exactly what he is) who is kind of forced to cover up his mother's crimes due to a mix of her abusive nature and his deep love for her, and you can't help but feel bad for Norman. And even when everything is revealed, nothing changes; Norman IS a victim of his mother's abuse and he can't exactly control his murderous actions. By making us, the viewers, get to know and sympathize with Norman Bates the person, Hitchcock forces us to sympathize with Norman Bates the killer, which is an extremely ingenious move on Hitchcock's part.

Finally, let's talk about the twist ending. Nowadays, the split personality twist ending is a cliche that has been done to death, this was a fairly new idea at the time and it was so complex for the time period that they needed to dedicate an entire scene to have a psychiatrist explain the entire thing. The scene does seem redundent and kind of stupid to a modern audience since most of us are so familar with the general idea of a split personality disorder, you could just kind of figure it out on your own, but the inculsion of the scene does show you just how much of a groundbreaking film this must have had on the genre as a whole. The twist ending is honestly fairly predictable when you really get down to it (it's obvious that the mother was dead the entire time considering we never see her face, meaning that Norman had to be the killer), but again, this was considered a real shock when the movie first came out, another testament to what an absolute genius the movie is.

It's honestly really hard to find a flaw with Psycho. Even though the identity of the killer aspect is fairly predictable by today's standards, there are still lots of it (like Marion's murder and the money being thrown away) that are genuine surprises if you're a modern viewer watching it without knowing about the movie's plot. It is expertly acted, directed and written, and really the only parts that could be considered "weak" are just the lack of blood or real violence (understandable due to the time period) and the ending where the psychiatrist explans what's wrong with Norman (again understandable due to the extreme rarity of these kinds of twists). The soundtrack used, especially in the shower scene, is brilliant, and the special effects with chocolate syrup as the blood still holds up quite well. The movie has been parodied or referenced so many times and it really shows how much of an icon it has become in films. 

For my next review, I will be doing another Doctor Who review, covering the incarnation I consider to be the greatest Doctor of all time, the man who defined the character of "The Doctor" for years to come. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger,

The Connoisseur

ADAPTATION REVIEW: Sherlock Holmes VS Robert Downey Jr. VS Benedict Cumberbatch

"How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth?"

Over the years, there have been numerous mystery novels and short stories, each featuring its own detective who uses logic and deductive reasoning to solve their cases. But no fictional detective does their job better than Mr. Sherlock Holmes of 221B Baker Street and his assistant Dr. John Watson.

Created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes was first introduced in the 1887 novel A Study in Scarlet and since has been immortalized in a series of novels, and more famously, short stories detailing his adventures as he fought against criminals such as Charles Augustus Milverton and Professor James Moriarty. His fame only continued to grow after Doyle's death as the character of Sherlock Holmes himself was adapted into more novels, stage plays, television shows, and even films, with many incarnations introducing the character in a fresh rendition with new stories.

Two of the most well-known Holmes portrayals by the general public is without the doubt the portrayals by Robert Downey Jr. in the Guy Ritchie films and Benedict Cumberbatch in the BBC's Sherlock series. While there are many, MANY other versions of Sherlock Holmes throughout the years, portrayed by actors such as Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, Tom Baker, Peter Cushing, and Christopher Lee, I've chosen RDJ and Cumberbatch because they are probably the most well-known in the pop culture world and also two portrayals that are perhaps the least similar to the original Holmes.

Both RDJ's and Cumberbatch's Holmes, although sharing many similar characteristics with the original creation by Doyle, are still the least similar; RDJ's Holmes is a James Bond-like action hero while Cumberbatch's version is an unreasonably intelligent superhuman, neither of which are the essence of Sherlock Holmes as a character, although both do have SOME basis in the original stories. What I will be discussing today is how each of them measure up as Sherlock Holmes. I will first talk about each of the characters by themselves and a few other key characters in their stories. I will then compare RDJ and Cumberbatch to determine A. Who is the most faithful Holmes (which adaptation was more accurate to the Holmes stories?) and B. Who is the best Holmes. In this instance, the word "best" essentially means who I think managed to capture the essence of Holmes the best; it is possible for an actor or adaptation to be more accurate in plot and details to the original text but the characters and the overall feel of the adaptation might be off because of one reason or another.

Anyways, now that I've explained what I'm going to do, let's start off by talking about the original Sherlock Holmes.

Sherlock Holmes (Original)

Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes' main draw as a character comes from his almost superhuman sense of deduction, which comes from his years of practice and some natural intelligence. Holmes often encourages everyone around him, especially Watson, to hone their skills and develop similar powers of deduction for themselves, often explaining to everyone exactly how he deduced certain things so they could learn from his methods (although I large part of it is also a bit of his ego). I always really liked the fact that Holmes was never portrayed as being some unreachable God, but a man with above-average intelligence who honed his skills and is genuinely interested in helping others become better at the craft, which leads me to the second thing about Holmes that I liked: his personality.

Holmes is not naturally the most sociable person; but just because he isn't sociable, that doesn't mean he's necessarily unpleasant to interact with. He can often be very aloof at times, but he is always very polite to his clients, save for the occasional outburst or snarky remarks. Although Holmes can certainly be rude, there is an air of professionality when he works with others. For example, although Holmes has often been very rude about Inspector Lestrade (who he views to be the least worst investigator of Scotland Yard), he still shows professional courtesy towards him frequently, and enjoys Lestrade's frequent visits and seems to consider him a friend to some degree. 

The same goes for his relationship with Watson. Although there are points where Holmes is certainly rude towards Watson, Holmes does seem to genuinely enjoy his company. Furthermore, a really interesting part of their relationship once again lies in the fact that Holmes wants to help Watson improve and truly values Watson's opinions and thoughts on the case. Holmes also holds Watson in very high regard as a doctor, utilizing his training multiple times during cases. The relationship between Holmes and Watson is written so well you really do get the mutual respect they have for each other and the close friendship they've formed.

It's very hard to nail down exactly what's so alluring about Holmes as a character, but for me it was his cold passion for what was right; while Holmes is often on the side of the law, he is always willing to sidestep the law to do what was right. Holmes often breaks the law and commits criminal acts in order to achieve his goal, which is always what he deems to be right, and this idea of him performing vigilante justice while also working on the side of law at times is very fascinating.

Another reason why Holmes is so interesting of a character is that he's far from perfect of a character. The man is full of issues; he has zero social skills, he has very little regard for personal safety (he has put his own life at risk multiple times just to draw a confession out of someone), and he's addicted to drugs. And his flaws are very clearly laid out; other characters address them and actively call out Holmes for his bad habits and try to help him, and Holmes sometimes succeeds while sometimes failing. While often portrayed as a perfect hero, Holmes is anything BUT a perfect hero, but his imperfections are what makes him such an interesting protagonist to follow.

There is so much more to write about Holmes, but I think I managed to capture the main points of him in a rambling way. The point is, Sherlock Holmes so much more than a stereotypical "cold, calculating detective"; he's a genuinely nuanced character and a complex human being in many ways, which is what makes him so interesting of a character to read about, and if adapted properly, to watch. But of course, no Holmes story is complete without Holmes closest friend and sidekick, Dr. John Watson.

John Watson

Dr. Watson is often overlooked in the Holmes mythos as simply the narrator, and the POV reader "self-insert", and that's a big shame because Watson is such an interesting and accomplished character in the books. Watson has often been portrayed as a rather overweight man who is often a bumbling fool standing around solely to be impressed by Holmes' genius. On the contrary, Watson is, in the stories, the more action heroic of the two at times, being the one to always be entrusted with a firearm and often being called on by Holmes for help. Furthermore, the notion that Watson is a bumbling fool is also an insult to his character as Holmes acknowledges Watson multiple times as being a very talented doctor and being very intelligent and a great help to Holmes.

Watson is a good man; he is often the moral core to Holmes who helps him with his drug problems and and is a constantly trustworthy and loyal FRIEND to Holmes (and yes, Holmes and Watson are very close friends and not lovers; Holmes is clearly characterized to not caring about romance of any kind and Watson's a bit of a womanizer). Even though he is not as interesting as Sherlock to read about as he is more of an "everyman"-type character meant to be more bland to act as a reader self-insert to some degree, Watson is still a dynamic character on his own. Watson is kind, selfless to some degree when it comes to his friends and loved ones, trusting, and most of all, courageous.

What I always liked about Watson as a character is that he was very down-to-earth and honest about himself. Despite being a veteran of the Second Anglo-Afghan War, Watson never brags about himself or his immense skills. Of course, the canonical and non-canonical explanation is that Watson is writing about Holmes, and therefore does not need to write too much about himself; however, it does not change the fact that throughout the stories, Watson is always playing down his capabilities in many ways (it also doesn't help that Doyle likes to take Watson out of the action often). Not only is Watson fundamentally decent human being, he is also much more intelligent and useful than many people assume. 

Watson is often relegated to the bumbling sidekick role in popular media because it works well as a contrast to the intelligent Holmes; the more stupid the sidekick seems, and Watson is obviously not as sharp as Holmes is. However, Watson is by no means a bumbling fool. Watson is an extremely capable war veteran and a medical doctor; he is filled with his own knowledge that Holmes actually often relies on as a second opinion. It's honestly a little insulting how often adaptations downplay the importance of his character, but one other character that adaptations very frequently like to mess up is Ms. Irene Adler, AKA "The Woman".

Irene Adler

Irene Adler is "The Woman" to Holmes. And before you get started, no she is NOT Holmes' romantic interest; hell, the two of them don't even have a relationship that can be characterized as rivals or even acquaintances. Adler, in many ways, was used by Doyle as a critique of sorts of the sexist attitudes of his time towards woman and to show that even the great Sherlock Holmes is fallible. Adler is an intellectual equal, if not slightly superior to Holmes, but she also isn't characterized in the cliched way intelligent women often are; in more recent adaptations, Adler does unfortunate fall into this trop of being a femme fatale, often acting as a love interest for Holmes, which I think is a pretty big insult to her character.

The sole story she appears in, A Scandal in Bohemia, is an interesting story because Holmes is actually not working for the good people; his client, the King of Bohemia, is a bit of a scumbag who is fine with essentially abusing his power to basically harass his ex just so he can get married to a noblewoman and get her money. The king just assumes the worst and believes that she will blackmail him with a photo of them together while they were involved, when she just wants to move on and live a happily married life; it's only when the king begins to harass her and threaten her for the picture that Adler actively threatens to expose the pictures and ruin him. Adler reveals the same intentions at the end of the story and says she will only keep the picture as leverage just in case the king tries to harm her again, but won't ever use it for no other reason. In the end, the king really was the bad person in this story; he had a secret affair and decided to abuse his powers to harass a woman, even having her robbed. Holmes also just believed the king's words without question (there really was no reason for him to not to anyways) and did actively work to help someone who just wasn't a very good person. 

The story is important because not only does it show Holmes' flaws as a human being (i.e. He never bothers to consider the rather obvious fact that the king might be in the wrong and just accepts the job) but it also shows Holmes becoming fully outwitted for the first time. Although it originally seems like Holmes was the one who outwitted Irene Adler, it is later revealed that Adler saw through Holmes' ruse and outsmarted HIM. This is why Holmes considers Irene Adler THE WOMAN; he deeply respects Adler for her cunning and considers her to be the greatest among women. Although she appears in no other stories, Adler has managed leave an enormous impact on Sherlock Holmes. She is such an iconic and interesting character that she is usually given a central role in most adaptations of Sherlock Holmes.

Doyle really has an extraordinary ability to take minor characters who rarely appear and make them such memorable staples of the Holmes stories. For example, Holmes' landlady Mrs. Hudson barely appears in the stories (and most of the times she's just referred to as "the landlady) but has nonetheless become an iconic character in her own right; Holmes' brother Mycroft is another one of these characters as he only appears in three stories (and in one of them he was disguised during his one-page appearance and had no dialogue), but has also become a very iconic character. But I don't think any one-off or minor characters have become more iconic in the Holmes stories than the Napoleon of Crime himself, Professor Moriarty.

James Moriarty

Get an image of Professor James Moriarty in your mind. He's intelligent, sly, conniving, an equal to Holmes, his greatest nemesis, etc. One thing is clear about the way Moriarty is often portrayed: He is the main (and the most recognizable) villain of Sherlock Holmes'. But that could not be further away from the truth. Moriarty appears in exactly ONE Holmes story, The Final Problem (and sort of indirectly but also prominently in The Valley of Fear). He is mentioned a few times in subsequent works, but he only appears directly in The Final Problem, and even then he only directly confronts Holmes twice, with one of them (the final fight at the Reichenbach Falls) being off-screen; his other confrontation with Holmes is very brief, and apart from those two, Moriarty barely features in the story, with Watson only seeing him once. So why did exactly Professor Moriarty become so immortalized as Holmes' arch-nemesis?

One of the main appeals of Moriarty, in my opinion, is that he is an intellectual equal to Holmes. Holmes is such an intellectual giant that the only person who could really challenge him properly would be someone of an equal intelligence. Of course, this is because Moriarty was created by Doyle specifically so he could have a good excuse to kill Holmes off as he had grown tired of the character (ironically, Doyle's one hope was that he wouldn't just be known as the author who wrote Sherlock Holmes). In the one story he appears in, despite barely having a physical presence in that particular story, Moriarty is characterized by Doyle as a fearsome, calculating, brilliant "Napoleon of Crime". This title has stuck with Moriarty throughout the years, and is a testament to how brilliant of a writer Doyle can be, despite the fact that Moriarty has such a small presence in the stories.

As a matter of fact, Moriarty has such little presence in the one story he appears in, that his first name is never really revealed. Although Moriarty is given a fairly extensive backstory in The Final Problem, he is only referred to as "Professor Moriarty" throughout the story, and it is his brother, a colonel in the army, who is referred to as "James Moriarty". Despite this, in "The Adventure of the Empty House", the only story Moriarty is mentioned in, he is referred to as "Professor James Moriarty". This detail is important as it clearly shows Doyle never put much thought into the character, and yet wrote him so compellingly in his only appearance. Moriarty is such a fascinating character that it's no wonder he gets the title of Holmes' arch nemesis; of course, part of it is because Holmes really doesn't have any long-running antagonists to oppose him, so Moriarty is the obvious choice.

Every adaptation of Sherlock Holmes never fails to include Professor Moriarty and always includes some reference to their famous confrontation at Reichenbach Falls, whether it be a direct recreation of the events, their own spin on it, or just a similar confrontation that narratively matches with the Reichenbach Confrontation but takes place in a different location. Again, the inclusion of this confrontation is interesting because in The Final Problem, the confrontation takes place off screen, and all that we know about what happens there is that they had a physical altercation and Moriarty fell off the fall while Holmes survived.

Professor Moriarty is truly an iconic character in the Holmes stories and his brief but significant role in the stories is nearly unmatched by almost any other fictional character (apart from Tom Bombadil of course). He is the original arch nemesis archetype in fiction that so many others after him are based on and his significance as a pioneering character in fiction is almost criminally unrecognized.

Overall Assessment

The original Sherlock Holmes stories by Arthur Conan Doyle and the characters within them are such unique, classics that I don't think really compares to any other in the mystery genre. The characters and plot devices that seems like tropes or clichés now exist largely because of Doyle's work; just like J.R.R. Tolkien was responsible for more or less establishing modern fantasy with Lord of the Rings, Arthur Conan Doyle had the same effect on mystery novels. These stories and characters are timeless classics for a reason and adapting them well will be a very tall order.

First, I will be looking at the Guy Ritchie movies starring Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes and then the BBC show starring Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes. I will be referring to each of them as the RDJ version and the BBC version respectively.

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.)

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.)

RDJ's Holmes in the Guy Ritchie movies certainly doesn't feel enough like Sherlock Holmes to me, and I think the main issue is Robert Downey Jr. himself. Now RDJ can be a great actor; he certainly did a good job in the MCU as Tony Stark and as Charlie Chaplin, but the film Holmes feels too much like Tony Stark; now, being like Tony Stark isn't a bad thing (since he's a great character) but Holmes as a character is too composed and self-restrained to be like Stark. Now to his credit, RDJ did actually do a decent enough job of impersonating Holmes; he had the air of cockiness and confidence that Holmes has, as well as a certain level of gravitas, especially prevalent in the scene where Moriarty threatens Holmes with Mary and Watson's life. But I think overall RDJ was just a little too quirky to play Sherlock Holmes.

Another thing that I actually quite enjoyed about RDJ's Holmes was that he was portrayed as somewhat of an action hero. While Holmes is definitely known more as an intellectual, it is important to remember that he is also an extremely skilled fighter. Throughout the stories, Holmes has been known to be an excellent shot, being on par with the veteran Dr. Watson. In many cases, Holmes has been shown to use a walking stick or a cane as a weapon, and Watson calls him an expert swordsman, especially with fencing, which Holmes had apparently practiced in university. Furthermore, Holmes is very good at boxing, which he used in combination with jujitsu to defeat Professor Moriarty at Reichenbach. Considering how much of a great fighter Holmes is, it's amazing that the aspect of him being an action hero is barely explored in Holmes adaptations. 

One thing that I really liked they did with RDJ's Holmes was that they visualized his fast-moving brain. Whenever he fights, everything slows down around him as he basically calculates what moves he'll make and what his opponent will make in turn. It isn't always the realistic, but the way we see his thought process and exactly how he plans on countering the moves is a really good example of how he can observe his opponent in a brief time to calculate his strategies. The "superpower" is a bit over the top at times, but from what I understand extremely experienced chess players can do something very similar to it by observing their opponents habits and past games to predict their next few moves, so apparently there is some realism into it. That being said, I only like it cause it's a cool sequence and I'd like to imagine the book Holmes would to some degree able to predict the next move an opposing combatant could make, even if planning out the entire fight exactly accurately is unrealistic.

But in the end, I do think that RDJ's Holmes was just too quirky to be Sherlock Holmes. It kind of felt like the filmmakers took Tony Stark and basically gave him a British accent, and while Tony Stark is a great character, it just simply isn't Sherlock Holmes. I do like RDJ as Holmes, and while it actually has a lot of character elements that can feel Sherlock-like, his personality I think is a little too over-the-top strange to be a good Sherlock Holmes, even though I think RDJ could actually play a good Holmes with a good script.

John Watson (Jude Law)

How refreshing it is to see a Watson that isn't just a bumbling sidekick! Jude Law's Watson is more akin to Holmes' partner rather than a sidekick. He is more than competent on his own and Holmes treats him with much affection and respects him just as much as Watson respects Holmes. There's really nothing much to write about Law's Watson since I really like this version of him and I don't have much to complain about. Law has great chemistry with RDJ and I loved the fact that he actually played an active role in every scene and didn't just stand around to gape at Holmes being smart like many adaptations of him do.

Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams)

Irene Adler is once again (as she tends to be) portrayed drastically different from her book counterpart. She fulfils the femme fatale role people like to give her and is now an active romantic interest for Holmes until she is killed off. I honestly don't remember much about her character apart from the fact that she was kind of an unremarkable character who just became the cliched femme fatale love interest.

James Moriarty (Jared Harris)

Jared Harris is probably my favourite part of the RDJ movies. He portrays the menacing but sophisticated Moriarty so excellently and he really does justice to the character. Harris brings a slightly different approach to the character of Moriarty that I actually quite enjoy. The book Moriarty is a former Mathematics professor who actually doesn't have a clean reputation; while he was respected as a scholar, he was apparently compelled to resign his position due to some unspecified "dark rumors" about him, and was working as some sort of a private tutor during the time of The Final Problem, and was so unknown as a person that Watson had never heard of him. On the other hand, Harris' Moriarty is still a well-respected professor with essentially a squeaky-clean reputation and is a famed lecturer whose works are very well known. I like this take on Moriarty because it makes his ability to carry out criminal dealings without anyone ever suspecting a thing much more impressive, which in turn enables him to be a little more passive; for example, in The Final Problem story, Moriarty is so threatened by Holmes' presence that he has to visit Holmes himself to threaten him and later is actively chasing after Holmes to Reichenbach. In comparison, Harris' Moriarty is free to openly invite Holmes to come find him t his university office and it is Holmes that chases Moriarty to Reichenbach. Harris' Moriarty holds so much power that he really doesn't need to do any of the work himself, which is much more impressive in comparison to the active Moriarty of the books.

I also found Harris' Moriarty's actual role as a criminal interesting. Professor Moriarty of the stories was essentially a "consulting criminal", providing criminals with strategy and protection using his influence in exchange for their cut; in this way, he's manage to extend his ring of influence greatly. In comparison, Harris' Moriarty is much more of an active antagonist; his goal in the film is to disrupt a peace summit at a castle built on top of the Reichenbach Falls (which is a film-only creation) and profit from the ensuing war. While the original Moriarty's "consulting criminal" persona was clearly meant to be a reflection of Holmes' "consulting detective" job, I also kind of like the idea of Moriarty being this terrorist with an international approach to crime. After all, having Moriarty's evil plan be starting a World War is much more threatening and impressive than it being stopping himself from going to jail. I like Moriarty the consulting criminal on a symbolic level, but I also do like Moriarty the international terrorist in terms of its effectiveness in the plot.

Harris' phenomenal acting also has to be discussed because it is BRILLIANT. Harris is very good at subtly portraying the evil side of Moriarty while Moriarty keeps his gentlemanly persona, but he's also very subtly threatening to Holmes. He doesn't need to yell or growl or point a gun in Holmes' face to scare him; he can just speak softly and choose good words to scare the crap out of Holmes. I've always liked that Harris' Moriarty is so composed and never truly reveals any sort of range or anger until he is fighting Holmes in his mind, and terror when he falls off the waterfall. Professor Moriarty of the stories was much more prone to anger; for example, when Holmes famously says "if I were assured of the former eventuality [Moriarty's downfall] I would, in the interests of the public, cheerfully accept the latter [Holmes' destruction].", Moriarty becomes extremely angry, snaps at Holmes that he'll guarantee Holmes' destruction and storms out of the room in a huff. This is of course, meant to contrast between Holmes' composed and emotionless nature throughout the confrontation and Moriarty's more emotional, quick to anger temperament; in contrast, while both Moriarty and Holmes stay composed, it is Holmes that actually shows signs of fear when Watson is threatened while Moriarty seems mostly amused throughout the entire interaction. It really adds an extra layer of fear to Professor Moriarty.

Jared Harris is a great actor and his amazing acting, paired with some amazing writing and directing, made his Moriarty possibly my favourite incarnation of the character across all Sherlock Holmes adaptations.

Overall Assessment

Overall, the RDJ movies certainly made an admirable effort to capture the original feel of the characters but also make them unique. Their faithfulness to the original Arthur Conan Doyle stories is... questionable at times, but I think that the idea was to take the setting of the original stories and create new stories with it, and it worked out pretty well. The movies are definitely much more action than mystery, and it's disappointing to see Sherlock Holmes' deductive powers not being used as much, but I do think that 

Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch)

Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch)

Is Sherlock Holmes a detective or a man with supernatural powers? His so called "deductions" in the show make little sense a lot of the time. For example, in the very first episode, Holmes deduces that Watson has an alcoholic sibling because he has a newer model hand-me-down phone with initials H. Watson on them (which must come from an older sibling because an older man like his father would never have a newer phone) that has scratches around the port (which apparently implies a shaky hand caused by alcoholism even though people just can be bad at plugging in the charger). His "deductions" are pulled out from literally nowhere and are extremely outlandish; there are multiple explanations for many of Holmes' deductions but they're never even addressed and Holmes just turns out to be correct 100% of the time with his thought process almost never being explained.

Also, I know Sherlock Holmes was never the most likable or friendly character in the books, but this version of Holmes is just downright insufferable. I've sat through four seasons of this show and I still can't understand why Watson or Mary or Lestrade tolerate this jerk. Although Holmes in the book could also be dismissive and downright nasty to people at times, he obviously had his outright softer moments often; when the people around him did something right Holmes complimented them, and while he could be incredibly egotistic, he was, by all accounts, a fairly pleasant person when interacting with others normally for the sake of social conventions, if a little distanced. In comparison, the Cumberbatch's Holmes is just annoying and rude to EVERYONE; he almost never compliments Watson or anyone else, and he doesn't even pretend to act nice, having to be constantly be told to "behave". The book Holmes would be horrified to hear himself be described as a "high-functioning sociopath" since Holmes takes extreme pride in his ability to be a decent human being.

While Cumberbatch certainly does a fine job at acting the scenes where Holmes is revealing his deductions and he has a lot of potential to portray a more accurate Holmes really well, I think his Holmes is written so poorly that he just becomes an unlikable, egotistical, condescending know-it-all whose detective work is barely more scientific than an average psychic, making random guesses based on kind of flimsy logic that somehow is true 100% of the time. I really like Benedict Cumberbatch as an actor and while he does great with what he has, what he has simply isn't great.

John Watson (Martin Freeman)

What is the point of Watson in this show again? Because genuinely, he does almost nothing of relevance ever except from making Sherlock look super smart. While it's true that Watson's main role in the book WAS to make Holmes look smart, that wasn't his whole purpose. Watson was a valuable partner to Holmes, often being the person for Holmes to bounce ideas off of. But in the show, Martin Freeman's Watson doesn't really do anything of note. Yes, there are points where he contributes to the plot, but those moments are few and far between, and mostly serve to highly how smart and "cool" Sherlock is. It's a shame since I do really like Freeman as Watson and he has so much potential, but I feel that they've relegated him into an almost irrelevant character in favour of other characters to the point where I might even say that the only reason Watson is in the show is so that Steven Moffat could tease a Holmes-Watson romantic pairing (something that people try to do with even the original book characters, which I find odd and frankly kind of stupid) that doesn't make sense and doesn't go anywhere. It was such a disappointment to see this happen since Martin Freeman is a genuinely good actor who I think could have made a great Dr. Watson, but it was wasted.

Irene Adler (Lara Pulver)

Frankly, this incarnation of Irene Adler, portrayed by Lara Pulver, is a great insult to the Holmes story. She is once again some boring femme fatale character and a love interest to Holmes. They really did a disservice to her character by just making her a flat-out antagonist. In the stories, like I mentioned, her keeping of the scandalous photographs is basically just insurance to keep herself safe from harm by a rich nobleman; it's a one-off affair, and she just wants to move on from it and be happily married. On the other hand, the TV Adler is a "dominatrix" and takes photographs of her clients and keeps them for what is essentially a power trip as she likes to be in control in any given situation, and actively blackmailing people who already paid her gives that rush. It's frankly quite offensive to the character and to Doyle himself; the original Adler was basically blameless in the entire thing with no intentions to ever actually do anything with the photographs, while the TV Adler is clearly more than willing to blackmail people, and by changing her to an active antagonist, it changes the whole point of the story.

Another very insulting thing about her character was her relationship with Sherlock. The book Adler and Sherlock have a mutual respect for each other's intellect; Holmes calls her "The Woman" (which in the show is her professional name apparently) because he just respects her the most compared to every other woman he's met. In comparison, Steven Moffat (the showrunner) decided it would be a good idea to make Irene Adler: A. A romantic interest, something that I don't like since Adler's whole point was that she was a female character there to be an equal to Holmes and not some romantic interest like female characters tended to be during that time. B. Moffat not only had Irene Adler an active antagonist, but he actually made her lose to Sherlock (Sherlock in the end outwits her) and essentially has to have her beg Sherlock to have pity on her. Now, there's nothing wrong with having a seemingly powerful character break down and beg for help from the protagonist, but it's not what Irene Adler ever was and it's not the kind of character she should be.

It feels like Steven Moffat ignored everything about the original character that made her interesting and basically reversed to get a character who is essentially the "Anti-Adler". A Scandal in Bohemia happens to be one of my favourite Holmes stories as well, so it was very annoying for me to watch a great story and a great character get massacred into a shell of its former self. 

James Moriarty (Andrew Scott)

First off, let's make it clear that this guy is not "Professor James Moriarty". He's "Jim Moriarty, Consulting Criminal". Now on paper, that sounds great; the "consulting criminal" part is a contrast to Sherlock straight out of the books and the younger Moriarty is a fresh take on him in contrast to the mathematics professor. But oh boy, what an absolute disappointment he turned out to be. Rather than being a villain you want to see more of because of their sheer charisma and intrigue, I found Andrew Scott's Moriarty one of the MOST insufferably annoying characters on screen (and this is coming from someone who had to suffer through Adric in Doctor Who).

Now, Andrew Scott's Moriarty had a very intriguing introduction; one of his victims, a blind lady, described his voice as being "nice" and he's set up as this very calm, gentlemanly, but threatening villain. He's characterized as a cutthroat businessman of sorts who will do anything to keep his criminal empire afloat, killing anyone who could give him away, including General Shan, who seemed to be legitimately terrified of Moriarty. Hell, General Shan is way closer to the Moriarty we know and love; she's very composed most of the times and has a very threatening presence due to it, and although she is very showy and sadistic unlike Moriarty (who was more of a "get things done quietly and quickly" type person), she still feels more like a properly threatening antagonist than the actual Moriarty does.

Now don't get me wrong, I think Andrew Scott did a great job with the role he was given and I understand why they went in this direction. But I just think it was a poor choice. Instead of being a calm, cold, calculating businessman-type criminal with some flare for the dramatic, we get this weird childish screaming Joker-wannabe. I'm not saying that the character should've 100% identical to the Moriarty of the books, but I found it hard to take Moriarty seriously when he was acting so... flamboyantly. There are some moments when he's genuinely threatening; for example, in the pool scene, when he describes how he never gets caught, he genuinely threatening, and later on when he suddenly screams out of control in anger are actually intimidating and does a good job of characterizing him as a threatening villain, especially when he is talking on the phone at the pool (genuinely a great moment of acting). But those moments are very few; most of the time, he walks around making weird sexual innuendos at Sherlock and acts all goofy which just doesn't match up with the image of Moriarty we had been led to by the show itself. Moriarty simply comes off as a weird Joker-wannabe, a psychopath who's flamboyant for the sake of flamboyant and it really doesn't make him threatening in any way.

Furthermore, I don't get his motivation in any way. Before he was officially shown on screen, Moriarty killed anyone he associated with that could give him and his empire away; he even bombs a blind old woman simply because she heard his voice. It's a characterization that makes sense and you get the sense that Moriarty is a very cutthroat businessman-type who cares more about preserving the power of his empire. But then this all goes away by the end of Season 1. All of that's thrown away and he becomes this maniac who's just simply obsessed with Sherlock and plays games with him all the time. In the pool scene for example, Moriarty has Sherlock and John cornered with snipers, but then doesn't have them killed because he's bored. It feels extremely in contradiction with the Moriarty we've been shown up to that point, it makes even less sense when he kills himself later; there was absolutely no logical point to Moriarty doing that, and I honestly don't see why he did it at all. Jim Moriarty as a character maybe be a mess of contradictions, but the way they use him in the show is also a complete mess.

I think at some point, showrunner Steven Moffat realized that people were watching mainly to see what Moriarty, this "interesting" and unpredictable new villain they created, would do. Let's face it, the main draw of this show is NOT mystery. Like I mentioned above, Sherlock is so unreasonably superhuman that the "mysteries" he solves are solved with information he got off screen or somehow figured out with no set up that it's really not interesting for us to watch him solving crimes. So as a result, Moffat decided to milk Moriarty like every other episode and decided to drag him on and on for episodes at which point Moriarty just kind of got annoying; he has a main shtick of being a weird flamboyant dude that just gets annoying as hell after a while. Moriarty is such a compelling antagonist despite his short tenure in the stories, and it was really disappointing for him to portrayed this way.

Overall Assessment

What a disappointment overall. It's saying a lot when the most "book accurate" characters were Mycroft Holmes (played by Mark Gatiss in the show, but played even more amazingly by Stephen Fry in the movies) and Inspecter Lestrade (played by Rupert Graves), considering neither of these character appear in the books prominently enough for the readers to really fall in love with (that being said, I think Mycroft is a really interesting character). It was just such a letdown to see these great characters and stories get turn into a shallow version of themselves. While Sherlock definitely has its redeeming moments and episodes (The Hounds of Baskerville was quite a well made episode and most of the actors like Toby Jones and Lars Mikkelson do an amazing job acting), the entire last season with the whole "secret sister" story arc was unbelievably poorly written and carried out. It has a great premise, but failed in its execution.

The Most Faithful Holmes

I would say the BBC show with Cumberbatch is the one that feels like it's actually trying to adapt the original stories. While RDJ's version also show elements from the books and sometimes even directly takes quotes from books, the stories themselves are not even close enough to the original books that I can't, in good conscience, consider them faithful adaptations. But then again, the movies were really trying to be adaptations. They were more into telling new stories in the Holmes universe with call backs to the stories more than anything, and I think they did that just fine, but creativity and originality unfortunately means sacrifices must be made to accuracy.

On the other hand, BBC's Sherlock also suffers from taking a lot of creative liberties as well, with a lot of the elements in the show not being in any of the stories. However, this I think is forgivable as the show itself is a modern retelling of some of the classic Holmes stories. Now, do I think they got everything right? No. As a matter of fact, I honestly think their characters act nothing like their book counterparts or are even all that likable. However, they ARE more faithful with elements of book accuracy, as they did at least try to imagine how different stories would happen in modern day, which I actually thought was an interesting idea, even if the execution wasn't great at all. 

Although I think RDJ's version is a lot more accurate in terms of the general setting and the feel of the characters, I would have to say that the BBC version is more accurate simply because they're attempting to adapt the stories. However, they aren't adapted well at all, with a lot of unnecessary padding to the plot that doesn't add to the stories much in any way, which does make sense; after all, most of Holmes stories are all short stories, and a single Sherlock episode is 90 minutes for some reason, so with exceptions from ones like the Hound of Baskervilles (which was originally a novel to begin with), most of the stories kind of finish adapting the actually story rather quickly and likes to pad the rest of the runtime with with an added plot that I honestly don't think ever really adds to the story because by that point, the episode becomes a mediocre-ish thriller that is kind of cliched and not all that interesting. But that being said, the BBC at least IS adapting from an existent story while the RDJ version is just creating whole new stories in the universe, so the BBC version is more "accurate", even though I would never consider it so compared to most of the other adaptations that exist.

But that's enough on adaptation. Which actor was the BEST Holmes? Which actor captured the essence of the Holmes from the stories the best?

The Best Holmes

Personally, I would always argue that Jeremy Brett portrayed the best Sherlock Holmes and no actor would ever live up to him. Perhaps one day, I will do a separate review of Jeremy Brett as Holmes, but right now, judging solely between Robert Downey Jr. and Benedict Cumberbatch, I would say that Robert Downey Jr. was the better Holmes for me, even though Cumberbatch has his merits. 

While a lot of people prefer Cumberbatch's Holmes because he's this cold calculating figure who's just an ass to everybody because of how smart he is (kind of like Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory), I personally just think RDJ's Holmes is much more interesting to watch. The Holmes of the novel could certainly be cold and unsociable, but most of the times, he could be nice enough to the people around him and was never so socially challenged that he wasn't aware he was being insensitive. Holmes was an odd fellow, but he was amicable enough around others. Cumberbatch's Holmes is just straight up unlikable with his cold and unpleasant attitude to others that I just couldn't feel comfortable around, while RDJ's Holmes is much more likable.

Holmes' likability question also leads into my point about his relationship with Watson. Cumberbatch's Holmes and Freeman's Watson are just in a very toxic relationship that Watson never seems to benefit from. Watson is too reliant on Holmes and we rarely ever get to see him be even somewhat independent from Holmes; everything he does has to relate to Holmes in some way and it annoys me. On the other hand, RDJ's Holmes and Law's Watson genuinely seems to enjoy each other's company and are actual friends. Cumberbatch and Freeman constantly act annoyed at each other and Holmes treats Watson merely like a tool and nothing more; meanwhile, RDJ and Law have a lot of friendly banter and neither treats the other merely like a useful tool, instead treating each other as invaluable partners.

Another thing that I enjoyed about RDJ's Holmes that a lot people didn't actually like was that he was an action hero. Although I didn't really like that the RDJ movies became more action than mystery, one thing I liked was that RDJ's Holmes was a man of action. Holmes is a man who is versatile in all practical matters; he is proficient in science because it becomes necessary during his work but not in philosophy or literature. And it makes perfect sense to me that Holmes would also be trained in hand-to-hand combat, and with RDJ not only did we get to see him fight, but we also saw him use his great intellect to predict his opponents moves and calculate his own next move. On the other hand, we never see Cumberbatch's Holmes actually do much fighting, which kind of is a disappointment to me.

Even though what I've been writing so far is more related to accuracy than actual quality, it still contributes to my argument that Robert Downey Jr. was the better Holmes. Through his actions (mannerisms, interactions with others, etc.), RDJ is the one between the two that I can recognize as being Sherlock Holmes more. While RDJ's Holmes has his fair share of issues, he at least feels more like Sherlock Holmes to me. He could be cocky and arrogant, but still personable to those he liked; you could feel his burning passion as he did his work, and you got the feeling that his cases weren't simply things to kill his boredom, and that's exactly why I think RDJ is the better Holmes and his universe is a better representation of Doyle's universe.

Concluding Thoughts

Let's get something clear: both the RDJ and the BBC versions aren't perfect. Both have their strong points and both have their flaws. But in the end, I think that the RDJ movies did a better job at portraying the Sherlock Holmes we've come to love through Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. While the BBC makes an admirable attempt at trying to modernize the stories, I think it fell flat in the end because it tried to take too much creative liberties and took away from some of the classic elements that made Sherlock Holmes so beloved. In the end, I still like what RDJ's movies tried to do and I like what the BBC tried to do, but no Holmes will ever beat Jeremy Brett and that's final.

Well, that took forever to finish. Maybe Sherlock Holmes was just too big of a project for me to handle. I definitely took too much of a big project on and I was definitely out of my depth on this subject. For my next review, I'll be taking a look at a horror classic by Alfred Hitchcock that manages to squeeze screams out of people with just a bottle of chocolate syrup. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger,

The Connoisseur

FILM REVIEW: Green Book (2018)

 "I live in a castle, Tony! Alone. And rich white people pay me to play piano for them because it makes them feel cultured. But as soon as I step off that stage, I go right back to being just another ni--er to them. Because that is their true culture. And I suffer that slight alone, because I'm not accepted by my own people 'cause I'm not like them, either."

America in the 1960s was a drastically different place from what it is today. Not only did the segregationist Jim Crowe laws of the South kept white and black Americans quite literally divided in a physical sense, but all over America, there was a clear view of African Americans being lesser than white Americans. Of course, racism still exists nowadays in the United States, but the end to legally enforcable racism came about thanks to the efforts of three presidents: Dwight Eisenhower, who supported the integration of schools in the South by utilizing the military, John F. Kennedy, who attempted to push for an end to desegregation with his (ultimately failed) Civil Rights Act of 1963, and arguably the most importantly, Lyndon B. Johnson, who revitalized the failled 1963 Act to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and took a step further by passing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to prevent racial discrimination in voting. Although of course presidents such as Abraham Lincoln and Harry Truman aided in the effort to bring African Americans out of slavery to bring a more equal life for them, it was Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson who truly advanced the cause of civil rights seriously.

This historical context is ultimately irrelevant to the viewing of the movie, but it does provide important background context; the movie is set in 1962 American South, which means that legal segregation by the way of Jim Crowe is still rampant and strong. And because it was the 1960s, the common consensus was, even in the more tolerant Northn United States, that African Americans were second-rate citizens. This is all evident by simply watching the movie, but I thought this little historical lesson provides a fun little extra knowledge on the setting of this movie. But enough about the history lecture; let's actually talk about the movie itself.

The movie's title, Green Book, refers to an actual book called "The Negro Motorist Green Book" that existed in the early 1900s. It gives African Americans a "guide" to travel across America (mostly Southern U.S.) without running into trouble because of the colour of their skin. The book itself is referered to in the movie, and it serves as a reminder to how dangerous it could be in the early 1900s (and even after to some degree) to simply be of a different race from most Americans. All over United States, even in places with no segregation, black people simply were not considered equal, and the existence of a "Green Book" proves that. This fits into the whole idea of the movie, which mainly shows racism from white people to black people among other things.

The movie itself focuses around Dr. Don Shirley, an African American pianist of classical music and Tony Vallelonga, an Italian American middle-class worker. Tony is hired by Dr. Shirley to be his driver while he does a tour in the Deep South (the "Deep South" refers to the states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana, AKA the States that used to be the most pro-slavery part of the Confederacy). The film focuses on not only the bond between the two men that develop as they face a totally different world in the South, but also race relations and how one's surroundings can affect your personality more than the race you are and that stereotypes of your race don't neccesarily define you. 

The film highlights the issues of race and stereotypes by characterizing Dr. Shirley and Tony as almost living each others' lives in a strange sense. Tony, the white man, is treated like a second-class citizen and is more in touch with stereotypical "black culture", having a better understanding of African American people than Dr. Shirley does. Dr. Shirley is upper class and is generally highly regarded and is much more familar with European-style culture and finds his interactions with other African Americans extremely jarring and foreign. Tony and Dr. Shirley comes from two totally different worlds, and they are completely unfamilar with the cultures that they should theoretically fit in the best.

The film also highlights the isolation Dr. Shirley faces on a daily basis. By nature, Dr. Shirley seems to generally be very aloof, living alone in his giant house and not very good in social situtations. However, (as shown in the quote above), Dr. Shirley is just completely alone. Although the Northern US was much less racist than the Southern US in general, African Americans were still largely seen as second-class citizens who recieved very little respect from a lot of people. As a result, Dr. Shirley talks about how although the rich white people accept him as a skilled pianist, they would never really associate with him due to him being black, and that because he was too "white" he didn't fit in with other African Americans at all.

I found this contrast very interesting. The movie's racism and isolation of Dr. Shirley on one hand is very obvious in the form of the segregationist Jim Crowe laws of the South. However, on the other hand, Dr. Shirley also experiences social segregation in the North as he is simply not accepted really by anyone and I thought that the movie did a great job bringing this idea full circle with Dr. Shirley finding proper acceptance with Tony and his family in the end.

While one might think that Dr. Shirley's discrimination based on race was bad enough, Dr. Shirley finds even more trouble along the way as he happens to be homosexual. While black people may have been generally tolerated in the Northern US in the 60s, homosexuals and other members of the LGBTQ community were not accepted by Americans (and still aren't by many) for a long time. To put things into context, the first state of legalize gay marriage was Massachussetts in 2004. So not only does Dr. Shirley face discrimination based on his race, but also on his sexuality, both of which were antagonized especially in the conservative Southern US. 

Something that I really liked about the film was that it does have a message of being colourblind in a sense in matters of race issues. Tony, for example, never really cares that Dr. Shirley is black or gay and treats him as he would treat anybody else. Although there are certainly moments where Tony does say some crude things related to race, you can tell that his intents are never malevolent and that he was just saying what was widely acceptable at the time; not with any hatred, but just using regular language. In this way, Tony and Dr. Shirley really bond; while they are from two completely different worlds, they are in a way somewhat similar. Being Italian-American, Tony is also generally treated as being second-class citizen, and he embraces that lifestyle and enjoys it, helping Dr. Shirley (who is more self-conscious about his status in the public) loosen up and truly enjoy life and other people.

While of course it is completely impossible to be colourblind (everyone is always going to be of a certain race and culture and you can't just ignore that), I think it's a really good way to go through life; just treat everyone else as being the same and act with good intentions. I personally find that part of the reason why there are still racial conflicts is that people tend to see other people's differences far more than their similarities and I think that divides people up even more even when people's differences are pointed out with good intentions.

Overall, Green Book did an excellent job in many aspects. It highlighted well the racial issues in the 60s United States and portrayed very well how racism was ingrained into the lives of the people; in some cases, the Southern racism didn't seem personally malevolent (as in the racist person themselves didn't seem to be acting on hatred) but rather it just felt like a way of life in the sense that it felt so casual and ordinary. It also portrayed well how two completely different people could simply be brought together naturally; Tony and Dr. Shirley are almost polar opposite in personality and lifestyle, but they simply grow to enjoy each other's companies and grow by learning from each other. The movie often makes you wonder "why can't more people just get along nicely like this?".

On another note, the acting in this movie was top notch. Viggo Mortensen (best known as Aragorn from the Lord of the Rings movies) plays the role of Tony perfectly, and it's remarkable how he feels so natural in the role of this streotypical Italian-American man. Mahershala Ali was also very good as Dr. Shirley (winning an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor), but I honestly do think that Mortensen just did a much better job.

Overall, this is a great movie for anyone interested in 1960s US race relations and history but it's a great movie for everyone because it carries a nice message about race and how (I know this sounds cliched but bear with me) the power of friendship can really overcome these boundaries that we often think exists if you just don't let the boundary be there in the first place. Dr. Shirley and Tony didn't really make race a big part of their friendship; Tony didn't really care that Dr. Shirley was a gay, black man and Dr. Shirley didn't really care that Tony was an uneducated Italian-American. 

I think everyone (especially in these days of racial tensions) can really learn something valuable from Tony and Dr. Shirley's long lasting friendship (Fun Fact: Dr. Shirley and Tony actually died three months from each other in 2013).

For my next post, I will be doing an adaptation review of sorts as I review the greatest detective in fiction and how he was portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. and Benedict Cumberbatch. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger,

The Connoisseur

NOVEL REVIEW: And Then There Were None By Agatha Christie

"But no artist, I now realize, can be satisfied with art alone. There is a natural craving for recognition which cannot be gain-said."

Mystery stories have always been a subject of great intrigue throughout history. The thrill of a crime with an unknown culprit and the excitement of following the detective around as they find clues, question suspects, and eventually solve the crime is one of the greatest adventures you can get from a story. When it comes to mysteries, two authors (and characters) immediately come to most people's minds: Sir Arthur Conan Doyle & Mr. Sherlock Holmes and Agatha Christie & Hercule Poirot/Miss Marple; together, these two are often referred to as the King & Queen of Mystery.

Interestingly enough, although both Doyle and Christie are "mystery writers" the type of mystery novels they write are quite different. The type of mystery stories we are mostly used to are often known as "whodunit" stories where you follow the detective along as they solve the case themselves, giving you an insight to their thought process. Christie's mysteries are much closer to the "whodunit" style, where you are shown all the clues and the process through which the detective (or any sort of mystery solver) solves the case. Doyle on the other hand, is quite different as although he provides mysteries, it is basically impossible to figure the mystery out; this style makes sense as the stories are written by Dr. Watson, so the reader only has access to Watson's viewpoint until Holmes lays out everything right the end using information he had knowledge of or got hold of "off-screen". This is actually why the stories are referred to as "Adventures" rather than "Mysteries" in the title; while there is a mystery to solve, it is practically impossible for the reader to solve them. I've always been more of a fan of the "whodunit" style because my interests lie in actually thinking and solving out the mysteries; however, Doyle's adventures also have their own charm to them as with those you get to really use your imaginations to think of theories, and it's a lot of fun especially if you get it right. 

But enough about Doyle or Christie and mystery novel types. They serve as an introduction to one of Christie's non-detective mysteries, And Then There Were None. The novel is a non-detective mystery simply because there is no detective involved. Neither of Christie's famous Miss Marple or Hercule Poirot are there to solve the crime; in that regard, the story is much more closer to a Holmes story where there really aren't enough clues throughout for the reader to solve the mystery on their own (although I actually managed to solve it right away thanks to a pretty obvious clue). 

The story revolves around ten people trapped on an island who gets killed off by a mysterious host for the crimes they supposedly committed. The people are killed of in the manner described in the poem "Ten Little Soldiers" (in some older versions it's "Ten Little Indians" while the original book's poem was "Ten Little N-Word"). The order they are killed in are from the least worst to the worst in terms of the degrees of the crime they committed. In many ways, the book is very psychological, forcing the people on the island to confront their past crimes and driving a few on the island to genuine paranoia until they go completely crazy.

Something that I found interesting was that there are two different mysteries going on, and the secondary mystery is arguable more interesting than the primary mystery. 

The primary one is, of course, who the killer mastermind is; however, it is actually possible to figure out who the killer is straight away. The recording that accuses everyone of a crime at the beginning is done in the form of a trial, which does point at Justice Wargrave, the judge. Furthermore, out of all the people on the island, Wargrave was the only one who was never explicitly shown to be guilty of the crime he was accused of; Edward Seton was undoubtly guilty, and all Wargrave really seemed to have done was just convince the jury to look at the evidence properly and convict him. So as Wargrave's confession etter said, if one of the ten people on the island was not guilty, then that person must have been the criminal. Furthermore, throughout the book, you get a glimpse into each people's minds as they begin to reveal what crimes they committed; the only exception to this was Wargrave, which basically proved my suspicions that Wargrave was the only one who wasn't guilty of the specific crime he was accused of, which meant that he had to be the murderer.

The secondary, and the more interesting, mystery was the mystery of exactly what the crimes each person was guilty of. Some people, like Philip Lombard and Anthony Marston, admitted their crimes right away, while others, like Vera Claythorne took much longer to accept it. Especially in Claythorne's case, the crime she committed is slowly revealed and hinted at during flashbacks, but is never explicitly said. I found that this was the more interesting mystery to pursue because it delves into the psychology of the people's minds and it was really interesting to see how the paranoia of a mysterious killer and the guilt affected each people as time went on and how they reacted to it. In comparison, the more "central" mystery of who the murderer is, I found to be less interesting just because it was obvious to me.

Something that always bothered me was the order in which these people were killed. Wargrave's reasoning for selecting his victims were the severity of the crimes and their personal role in it; for example, even though Anthony Marston killed two children while speeding, he died first because of his lack of moral responsibility. This is all well and fine, but I find issue with the fact that Marston died before Emily Brent. Brent's crime was that she fired her teenage maid after she got pregnant out of wedlock, and the girl later committed suicide as a result; Brent doesn't feel remorse about it because she believed she was doing God's righteous work, but at the same time Brent didn't actually kill the girl, while Marston did, which is why I found it weird that Brent died after Marston. Another person whose timing of death felt off to me was Philip Lombard; his crime was that there wasn't enough food left while he was in Africa, so he and his friend ran off with the food and left 21 others to die. Now, I do think what he did was ultimately heartless, but at the same time I find it odd that Wargrave thought that was the second worst crime. Assuming his account of the story is true (and considering his brazen personality it's very likely it is), what he did really comes closer to pragmatic self-preservation more than anything; he needed to survive, and he did what it took to do so. What Lombard did is most definitely heartless and morally questionable at the least, but I don't know if it's worse than Marston killing two kids on a joyride or Dr. Armstrong killing a patient by operating on them while drunk. But then again, Wargrave himself is clearly crazy, so maybe that explains the faulty reasoning.

There's a lot of psychology in the book. In his confession letter, Wargrave analyzes himself as being a sadistic person who liked to kill people but nonetheless with a strong sense of justice; and although Wargrave is clearly a madman in many aspects, his analysis of himself is surprisingly accurate. Most of the people Wargrave kills ARE guilty of some crime that they never properly faced justice for, as he admits, he clearly gets satisfaction out of having power over life and death. It was a really clever idea to make Wargrave as a respected judge. As a judge, he can utilize that "strong sense of justice" he apparently has and also has power over life and death when he sentences people. Furthermore, his position as a judge was useful in the story as he was the most naturally trustworthy figure for everyone to follow the lead of, and Wargrave even uses this aspect to manipulate Armstrong, who refused to consider the notion that someone of Wargrave's stature could be the killer. It's because of this I really liked Wargrave as the murderer; most killers who kill for "justice" (like Wargrave does) often believe themselves to be righteous or deny that there is anything wrong with what they're doing. Wargrave on the other hand, straight up admits that he's messed up and what he's doing is mostly to fulfil his own desires; he doesn't really paint himself as bastion of morality either. He certainly believes what he is doing is just, but he also admits he's a sadistic man obsessed with murder. So I found him and his whole psychological analysis of himself as a crazy person really interesting.

 

The revelation of the mystery and the ending segment overall I personally thought was poorly done. Wargrave's entire plot can only succeed if Vera Claythorne goes paranoid, manages to kill the stronger Lombard, and hangs herself. What would Wargrave have done if that DIDN'T happen? Kill Lombard himself and force Vera to hang herself? But then that would go against the whole poem and Wargrave's methodical planning would kind of be ruined. Considering it was all planned by someone as methodical and calculating as Wargrave, the entire plan seems like it's too reliant on luck and for everything to go exactly the way it planned. His entire plan would be ruined if Lombard killed one of the others first or if Vera just didn't hang herself or if anything even went slightly wrong. Even for someone as intelligent and methodical as Wargrave, the plan just seems so flawed. 

Additionally, I thought the reveal was also just really lazily done. Really? Just listing it all out in a letter in the epilogue? That's just really lazy story telling and I was a little annoyed that Christie didn't attempt to do the reveal a little more creatively. I think it would have been better if after Vera hung herself, we had the narrative reveal Wargrave was alive; he would then walk around the island looking at all the murders he committed, and then he would commit suicide. The letter can still happen in the epilogue describing his backstory and all that, but I just would like for the reveal of the killer to have been written into the narrative so that I didn't have to read through a letter that explained EVERYTHING. Just an extra chapter at the end where we're shown everything after Vera's death through Wargrave's perspective would have been interesting and I think that was a bit of a letdown and a missed opportunity.

Overall, I thought it was a creatively and well-written book with a lot of well-used suspense and a clever premise. Apparently Christie herself said this was one of her most difficult books to write, and I can see why; with ten victims and a poem to follow, Christie did have to design all the deaths to fit the poem and create a compelling story for each of them. Although I thought the conclusion of the story was a bit weak, it's overall a very interesting story with a compelling premise and even more compelling characters.

For my next post, I'll be reviewing a movie. This one is an Academy Award-winning historical film about racial segregation and race relations in the United States. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger,

The Connoisseur

NOVEL REVIEW: The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson

"With every day, and from both sides of my intelligence, the moral and the intellectual, I thus drew steadily nearer to the truth, by whose partial discovery I have been doomed to such a dreadful shipwreck: that man is not truly one, but truly two."

If I had to name my favourite book, it would be a hard decision but I would actually put The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde by Robert Louis Stevenson as a top contender. I'm not quite sure what it is about this book that attracts me; it certainly has a horror and mystery element to it that I like, but the mystery wears off after the first time around since you know the big twist. Why I really like it I think is because it tells you a lot about human nature, suggesting that everyone carries a darkness within them (which I certainly think is true) and that the suppression of this side is maybe not always a good thing. But overall, the book is just really well-written. It gets straight to the mystery, builds all the characters and mystery up well, and gets to the point. It's always a lot of fun to read even if you know the twist, and I always found the ending (which is kind of a massive information dump) really interesting to read. So now let's get down to some of the details and interesting points I want to focus on.

Let's talk about what Dr. Henry Jekyll actually did. I'll talk more about what his experiment implies later, but just the facts for now. To be honest, it's not really clear what he actually did. Although pop culture has largely portrayed the whole debacle as a case of split personality, that's not actually the case. People always have this assumption that Jekyll and Hyde are two different personalities living in the same body and the physical switch (which we still never get an explanation for) is just the other personality becoming dominant. But that's not the case at all, because Jekyll and Hyde are the exact same person. Henry Jekyll is an upstanding member of society and a highly respected doctor, while Edward Hyde is actually just a physical manifestation of his darker personality. The reason why Hyde is smaller and younger is because Jekyll had spent so little time as Hyde.

According to Jekyll, even though he tried to suppress them, he had been dealing with unspecified "dark urges" his entire life; these urges could've been anything from doing drugs, wearing drag, or even murder, rape, and cannibalization. Using his darker urges as his main motivation, he designed a serum that would separate one's evil nature from their good nature, something that he believed would overall benefit the world. The book does not go into any detail about exactly how he figured out how to draw out one's dark side using a serum, but all we know is that it was a liquid and used a powder of some sort. But apparently he is very precise about his experiments, writing down the exact measurements and the steps; we just don't get any detail of the process.

Jekyll has a very interesting character arc that's only clear at the end, but on a second read-through you can see parts of it. Jekyll is a very morally-guided man who clearly strives to do the right thing as much as possible, but tends to fall victim to his base urges. However, he is also (to some degree) a fairly responsible man. Although he does murder a man as Hyde, as Jekyll, he is overly charitable, constantly hosting dinner parties for his friends and whatnot; and at the end, when he realizes he is stuck as Hyde forever, instead of running off to enjoy a life of debauchery, he becomes his own judge, jury, and executioner. At the same time, his "mad science" is also well-regulated and his process of discovery is all written out and organized in his notes. Jekyll, as Hyde, does his best to not hurt anyone, and when he does, he is always filled with shame and guilt over his actions. Jekyll is not really the antagonist of the story; Hyde, the seemingly immoral beast-like man, is the closest thing to an antagonist, but since he's also Jekyll, it's hard to classify him as an antagonist (especially since he doesn't really oppose the protagonists like an antagonist should). Jekyll is definitely a very interesting and the most humane character out of all the characters; he has a caged "darker" side and is prone to bouts of anger that he regrets but at the same time operates with some sense of careful control and morality. He's very realistic as a character and also very appealing as a character. And even though Gabriel Utterson is the focal point character of the story, you could easily argue that Jekyll, with his complex motives and an active character arc, is the protagonist of the story. 

Dr. Hastie Lanyon I thought was a very interesting character. He's not in the book very much and therefore his personality isn't showcased all that much, but I think that he has a very interesting characterization. Lanyon is very much a foil to Jekyll; they're both scientists, but Lanyon is much more grounded in the physical world while Jekyll delves into something much closer to supernatural magic. It's important to remember that Lanyon didn't denounce Jekyll's experiment because he thought the idea itself was morally wrong, but he denounced it because he thought Jekyll was being unrealistic, and his sickness and death after he learns Jekyll's secret seems to come largely from the shock of seeing something so unnatural rather than learning that his friend was a murderer. This once again plays into the notion that Lanyon is a foil to Jekyll; while Jekyll is creative and emotional, Lanyon is more grounded in reality and plays the "cold, calculating scientist"-type role well. One positive thing I can say about Lanyon though is that he is reasonably kind-hearted; he helped Jekyll despite their falling out and had allowed Hyde into his house no questions asked because Jekyll had asked him to. 

Let's close this review up with my little take on what the book was trying to say. I can't say if the book had a special message, but if it did, I think it was something like this: It is never good to over indulge or to over restrain yourself and achieving the perfect balance in life is what you should hope to attain. Yes, Jekyll did horrible things as Hyde because he couldn't keep under control his darker "urges" well. However, it is also important to remember that Hyde is only strong as he is because Jekyll didn't allow that side of himself to be free enough, which leads to an uncontrollable desire to fulfil these urges as Hyde; if he had fulfilled these urges controllably as Jekyll, he would have likely never needed Hyde. So I think that it could be argued that the point if the story is to keep everything in balance and don't let either extreme get too uncontrollable.

Overall, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde is a great book. It's a mix of science fiction, horror, and mystery all rolled up into one book, and even though it's such a short read, it manages to tell the story thoroughly and well. Dr. Jekyll is a very compelling character to follow, and rereading the story KNOWING the twist is always a lot of fun because you have extra context to what Jekyll does and says. It's a great book and if you haven't read it, I advise you to do so very soon.

For my next post, I'll be reviewing another novel. This one's a mystery written by an author named Agatha Christie and it takes place on an island. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur

DOCTOR WHO REVIEW: The Tenth Doctor - David Tennant (2006-2010)

(FROM LEFT TO RIGHT) Elisabeth Sladen as Sarah Jane Smith, Noel Clarke as Mickey Smith, Camille Coduri as Jackie Tyler, Billie Piper as Rose Tyler, David Tennant as The Doctor, Freema Agyeman as Martha Jones, Catherine Tate as Donna Noble, and John Barrowman as Captain Jack Harkness

"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but, actually, from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of wibbly-wobbly... timey-wimey... stuff."

The Tenth Doctor played by David Tennant is probably the most iconic and well-recognized Doctor in the whole series apart from maybe Matt Smith's Eleventh and Tom Baker's Fourth. And there certainly is a reason for that; Tennant's Doctor is charming, witty, and a bit of an action hero. His era brings about the return of the most classic of classic Who villains such as Davros, the Master, the Cybermen, and the Sontarans. We also see the introduction of some great companions, supporting characters, and villains. He also has a lot of great, action-packed episodes and just a whole lot of chemistry with his companions. 

As much as I love Christopher Eccleston's the Ninth Doctor, Tennant also deserves a lot of recognition for making the show what it is. He really brought new life to the show and his energy I think did make it accessible to a lot of people, and we can't ignore that.

The Doctor - Tenth Doctor (David Tennant)

David Tennant is just an amazing Doctor. He balances the goofier, light-hearted side of the Doctor and the darker side of the Doctor extremely well. Tennant's appeal I think comes from the fact that he just has a very likeable personality of always being (at least outwardly) positive and friendly to everyone even in dark times. He was also extremely witty and liked to make a lot of really funny one-liners that worked because of how human and casual he felt a lot of time. He has great chemistry with everyone on screen and he feels very much like Patrick Troughton's the Second Doctor in a sense because of how lighthearted and somewhat unassuming he could be at times (although the Second Doctor is much more unassuming in comparison) and his energetic, dashing and "young" energy that he brings to the Doctor is unmistakably very much like Peter Davison's the Fifth Doctor (his favourite Doctor and also his father in law).

Tennant also has really great chemistry with all of his companions, supporting characters, and even the villains and it's really hard not to just really get invested in his character. He's probably the "wide-appealing" Doctor in the sense that he's very much action-focused, charismatic, energetic, and funny, but can also be dark extremely well. He's very versatile and he's a very appealing protagonist to modern viewers (and he's consistently ranked as one of the best Doctors by viewers as well). 

Now that I've given an overview of the Tenth Doctor, I will be going over the Doctor's six(-ish) companions.

The Companions

Rose Tyler (Billie Piper) is back again and she has really good chemistry with David Tennant's Doctor. I wasn't overly fond of her romance story with the Doctor, but that being said, I think she was a pretty good companion. The Doctor genuinely enjoys being around her and throughout Tennant's run you can see her go from the classic "damsel in distress" to a bit of an action hero herself. She definitely isn't one of my favourite companions, but I do think she was really great for Tennant and provided a nice bridge from Eccleston.

Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman) is a good companion, even though she's not particularly a favourite of mine. She has great character development of going from a timid med student to a pretty badass soldier. But she spends her entire run being in love with the Doctor and annoyed by the fact that the Doctor's in love with Rose. I mean her lovesick angle was interesting at the start, but it does get pretty annoying after a while. Despite all that, she's a very interesting companion who brings a bit of her medical knowledge to her episodes so that she's not just following the Doctor around completely clueless.

Donna Noble (Catherine Tate) is easily the best companion of the Tenth Doctor and probably one of the best companions of the entire show. She is the only main companion who doesn't have any sort of romantic plot with the Doctor and it really works for her. The Doctor basically treats her as an annoying sister that he cares about, and Donna treats him as an annoying brother that she cares about. Donna is absolutely HILLARIOUS and matches Tennant in the amount of energy and wit she brings to the role. She's extremely outspoken about things she cares about and can be pretty crass at times to get her point across. I think that Tate's acting really shines in this role because she can also be very emotional and act sad scenes extremely well. Donna has a really tragic ending to her character and it was a bit of a shame to see her only for one season.

Wilfred Mott (Bernard Cribbins) is not "officially" a companion since he only was with the Doctor for two episodes, but he still counts as one in my books and is a great one. Wilf is Donna's grandfather, and despite being an old man, he still carries so much energy and joy to the role. Wilf is extremely positive and will attempt to lighten up almost any situation. He can really be described as that crazy but sweet old man who always spouts nonsense about aliens, except in his case he was right. The Doctor and Wilf have a father-son type relationship where Wilf just cares for him greatly. Even though he is a mainly comedic actor, Bernard Cribbins really excels in the darker moments as well, bringing a lot of gravitas to the role when he is needed. I really think they should've made Wilf a regular companion, but I'm happy with what we got too.

Sarah Jane Smith (Elisabeth Sladen) is the first (and to my knowledge only) Classic Who companion to appear in New Who. I've seen Sarah Jane's original run in the Classic Era and Elizabeth Sladen still has NOT lost any of her charm. She's not in Tennant's era for many episodes, but she definitely still has the same energy and interacts with the Doctor almost as she had never left him. Sarah Jane also has really good chemistry with Rose as well, both finding common ground in making fun of the Doctor. Overall, she's just a great companion and I understand why she's such a fan favourite.

K9 (voiced by John Leeson) is another one of the Doctor's companions from Classic Who. K9 is this "futuristic" robot dog who basically moves around like a remote controlled toy. That being said, his very straightforward way of talking was really nice and even though he was only in one episode fully in New Who, he was just a fun character.

Jenny (Georgia Tennant) is not technically a companion since she was only in the episode The Doctor's Daughter, but I really liked her character and thought she had a lot of potential. She's essentially created through the Doctor's DNA and she has two hearts like a Time Lord. Her character really affects the Doctor's character because after all that he lost, she gives him a chance to have a family again, but then that chance taken away from him. She also has a really good dynamic with the Doctor who doesn't really approve of her more aggressive side and the way the two interact does remind you of a bickering father and daughter.

Fun Fact: Jenny's actress Georgia Tennant is not only married to David Tennant (I think they met during this episode) but she is also the daughter of Peter Davison, the Fifth Doctor, which actually does make her the Doctor's Daughter in real life. 

And these were the Doctor's companions; now it's time to look at some of the side characters and the Doctor's foes.

Other Characters

The Master (Derek Jacobi & John Simm) is the Doctor's childhood friend and current "frenemy". I liked both of their incarnations but I did like Derek Jacobi's more serious, ruthless version more (even though he wasn't the Master for that long). John Simm's master is a lot like Moriarty from BBCs Sherlock. He's very energetic, witty, and is very much like if the Tenth Doctor was evil. That being said, I still really love the Master because Simm still acts really well and he always keeps you entertained as a villain. There is also a very tragic side to his character where the Master isn't necessarily evil; he's still definitely a chaotic character in general, but his desire to do harm is more out of a part of him that he can't control, and John Simm portrays the "tortured soul" aspect of the character really well. I still much prefer Michelle Gomez's Missy and Roger Delgado's original Master to Simm, but he still gives a really strong performance.

Davros (Julian Bleach) is the creator of the Daleks and one of the BEST Doctor Who villains. He is a megalomaniac who is cruel, ruthless, but extremely intelligent. Even though he is a cruel and sadistic person, Davros is another one of Doctor Who's "tragic" villains in a sense. Even though his goals had become twisted into "eradicate all other races", the underlying goal for him is to ensure the survival of his race and he does seem to actually care about the wellbeing of Daleks. So it does feel a little sad that a brilliant man like him became so twisted, but that's what makes so many Doctor Who villains great; they're evil not necessarily because of any selfish reason but their motivations are firmly rooted in a base desire to either survive or to do what they perceive to be good (except for the space racist in Season 11).

River Song (Alex Kingston) is only in two Tennant episodes, but will become MUCH more significant later and still manages to shine through in those two episodes. She's got a lot of the same charisma that Tennant has; she's witty, smart, and can be really funny. It's hard to write a lot about her in the context of the Tenth Doctor because she's in his seasons so little, but I will just say that she does manage to leave a fairly strong impression even with a fairly limited screen time.

The Weeping Angels are really phenomenal villains. The episode they appear in, Blink is basically a horror story and it's interesting because the Doctor isn't in that episode very much. I thought it was an interesting choice because it really makes the Angels the center of attention. I actually found that by towards the end of the Eleventh Doctor's run they don't become as scary; the episode The Angels Take Manhattan in specific I think kind of cheapened them a little bit. But in this particular episode, they are really scary.

The Sontarans (Dan Starkey) are kind of similar to the Daleks from what I found. They're very interesting in their militaristic ways but I personally don't think they're all that interesting. In the Eleventh Doctor episodes though there's a Sontaran named Strax who is absolutely BRILLIANT though, but I'll hold off on him for later.

The Daleks (voiced by Nicholas Briggs) are once again great. It's hard to write about the Daleks because unlike the Cybermen (whose designs and characterizations often change), the Daleks remain pretty much stationary and they remain consistently good (if a little bit too frequent) villains overall.

The Cybermen (voiced by Nicholas Briggs) are interesting because they aren't the same Cybermen that has appeared on Who or will appear on Who. The Cybermen are originally of humanoid origins whose goal is to upgrade themselves to survive. These Cybermen are actual humans (from a parallel world) who were transformed by a man named  John Lumic, who saw them as the "next step in human advancement". It is the same general idea as the original Cybermen, but instead of the fear being "this could be us", it becomes "this IS us" with these real human Cybermen. Weirdly enough, after Matt Smith becomes the Doctor, the Cybermen are aliens again. I honestly think the new robotic designs took a lot away from the Cybermen. The thing that made them scary was that even though they were alien robots, in Classic Who they were still distinctively human; they were humanoid, and in a lot of cases you could still tell a bit of the pragmatic humanity desperate to survive. In New Who, they increasingly become a second-fiddle villain where they're almost always under the command of a non-Cybermen leader, and I think them losing their individuality makes them a weaker villain.

Caecilius (Peter Capaldi) is only being mentioned because he's being played by Peter Capaldi, AKA, the Twelfth (and one of my personal favourite) Doctor. He is in the episode The Fires of Pompeii, and even though I thought the episode itself was decent, but Capaldi does an excellent job and it's really interesting how this episode (and Capaldi's character) not only showcases Donna's personality as someone who wants to be more than what she is and also the beginning of the Doctor's arc in having control over the laws of time. Caecilius is actually stated explicitly be the reason why the Twelfth Doctor looks like Peter Capaldi and I really liked that the writers tied the two together.

Captain Jack Harkness (John Barrowman) is back again in a slightly more prominent role. Now immortal he still retains all of his charm and it was fun seeing him again especially since I think Barrowman and Tennant have really great chemistry together. There's really not too much to write about him that I haven't said before.

Harriet Jones, Prime Minister (Penelope Wilton) first appeared in Season 1 as an MP for Flydale North and by Ten's first episode, she has been elected Prime Minister. She's a very pragmatic figure as Prime Minister who does what she sees as best for England, not necessarily what is morally right. As a result, she clashes heavily with the Doctor in terms of national defense. Although she becomes antagonistic to the Doctor on matters of national security, she sacrifices herself and dies as a hero. I thought she was a really interesting character because her motivations are very grounded in reality. We want to think our leaders make the morally right choices but Jones' pragmatism forces her to make the hard choices for what she perceives to be the wellbeing of the country, which I thought was interesting.

Now that we've covered some of the other characters related to the Tenth Doctor, I'll be talking about some of the Tenth Doctor's stories.

The Stories

The Tenth Doctor has so many great stories, but since I can't cover them all here are just a few:

The Runaway Bride is a 3rd season Christmas Special, and the first episode in which we get introduced to Donna. It's just a really fun episode because Tennant and Tate have really great chemistry and the moment I saw the episode I fell in love with Donna as a companion. There's actually not that much else to add because the episode alone wasn't anything too special but the addition of Donna is really what makes the episode a standout.

Blink is the first episode that we get introduced to one of my favourite Who antagonists, the Weeping Angels. Like I said previously, I thought it was a great idea to not have the Doctor feature too heavily because it puts the focus on the Weeping Angels. The episode introduces the character Sally Sparrow (played by Carey Mulligan) and I really liked her as a character. She's got a strong independent streak to her and she's smart and very capable on her own, and it would've been great to get her as a companion later on. The episode as a whole has a horror vibe (which I really like) and it's just a fun episode for anyone to watch; even if they aren't familiar with Who at all, it works as a standalone episode.

The Sound of Drums & Last of the Time Lords is a two-part story featuring the Master. It is the first time we get to see the Master in action and I thought it was just really interesting. John Simm is generally great as the Master (although I do think he sometimes overdoes it). I also really liked Martha's character development through just these two episodes. Her transformation into a more action hero type does feel believable as there were moments throughout the whole third season where she was getting thrusted into more dangerous situations, and I thought it was one of the better companion arcs and made a good reason for her departure. The ending where everyone believing in the Doctor gave him power again felt a bit forced and I really could've done without seeing wrinkled old man creepy goblin Doctor, but it's a really good two-parter and it's again a great part of the Doctor's story arc.

The Waters of Mars is the first time that we properly see how dark the Doctor can be. At this point, he has lost Donna, Martha, and Rose, and is traveling alone. The Doctor messes with time on purpose because he doesn't want to let any more people die (despite it being the "right" thing to do). When one of the people he saved, Captain Adelaide Brooke told the Doctor he was wrong for him to save her, the Doctor says, "For a long time now, I thought I was just a survivor, but I'm not. I'm the winner! That's who I am. The Time Lord Victorious!" It's a very powerful scene because this is the Doctor at his darkest; the Doctor has lost so much that at this point, that for a split second, he has become a power-hungry egomaniac (and he's always had a bit of an ego) and we see what the Doctor can be like, and it's not pretty. That very short scene at the end is the greatest bit of acting Tennant has done in the show and even if I don't remember the episode well, I remember that single scene.

The End of Time Part 1 & 2 is the final episode with David Tennant as the Doctor. Not only does it feature the return of the Master and the first appearance of other Time Lords including Rassilon (played amazingly by James Bond himself Timothy Dalton), but it also has Wilf as a full-time companion, which is always an added bonus. John Simm I think gives his best performance as the master in Part Two because he really shows a conflicted side and will actually help the Doctor, albeit for his own purposes (a character arc that will eventually become complete with the Twelfth Doctor). It's a very lore-heavy episode and I really liked how much insight this episode gives to all the characters; the Doctor, the Master, and even Wilf gets an extra layer of depth into their characters. It's a really fitting finale for the Tenth Doctor and I think his regeneration scene & the Doctor saying goodbye to everyone was done really well (although I'm not a total fan of how they introduced Matt Smith as the Doctor).

So now that I've covered all parts of Tennant's run as the Doctor, it's time for my summative thoughts.

Overall Thoughts

Something that I find really interesting after writing all of this is the fact that a lot of Tennant's episodes contributes a bit by bit towards his overall character arc. Even seemingly small episodes like Fires of Pompeii help in building Tennant's whole story as being a survivor and leads up to the "Time Lord Victorious" story arc and his fear of regeneration. The overall story is really well crafted out and it's fascinating how showrunner Russell T. Davis is slowly building up the finale with his episodes.

Overall, Tennant is a great Doctor. He balances everything perfectly; he can be fun and goofy but also serious and really dark. He has great chemistry with all of his companions and any side characters and brings a lot of great stories and moments.

His status as one of the most beloved Doctors in Who history is so well-earned and it's impossible to find a flaw with his performance or even his run as the Doctor.

For my next review, I will be talking about one of my all time favourite books that I read every few months. It's a classic about the duality of man. As always, thank you for reading my blog, and I always will enjoy hearing from all of you, so if you have any comments, feedbacks, opinions, suggestions, etc., please feel free to comment, and I WILL respond to ALL comments!

Your Most Faithful Blogger, 

The Connoisseur