Jawn Holmes

Everything about Sherlock

776 notes

I deduce, Watson, you hate being an everyman | The Sunday Times







Martin Freeman won an Emmy last week for his role in Sherlock but summons up the fire of his new stage role as Richard III to warn against seeing him solely as a sardonic Englishman

by Josh Glancy 

Freeman as Watson with Benedict Cumberbatch’s SherlockFreeman as Watson with Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock (BBC)

If they were having a race to the top, Martin Freeman would be the tortoise and Benedict Cumberbatch would be the hare. Cumberbatch, tall and unconventionally handsome, brimming with public school charm and swagger. Freeman looking like a bloke you’d meet down the pub. Cumberbatch hared to global stardom, but Freeman is running his own race; slower, less ostentatious but ever so successful.

Since their Sherlock bromance first captivated the nation in 2010, this unlikely duo have conquered Hollywood and the world. Their careers have become strangely symbiotic: Sherlock Holmes and Dr John Watson, Bilbo Baggins and Smaug the dragon, little and large. So it was no surprise when the pair won awards at last week’s Emmys. Cumberbatch as Sherlock pipped Freeman in Fargo for outstanding lead actor in a mini-series or a movie, but Freeman picked up outstanding supporting actor in a mini-series or a movie for his role as Watson.

Freeman was reading in bed when he received the news in a text from his agent. Did it feel like a bit of a consolation prize? “Yeah, I really hated it,” he says. “No, really, we’re all very pleased for each other. We all win because it’s all good for Sherlock. For a British show to be doing that well is a thrill. I emailed Ben in the morning to congratulate him and he rang me later on.”

Such is the on-screen chemistry between Cumberbatch and Freeman, there has been widespread suggestion that the Sherlock-Watson relationship is about more than just solving crimes and banter in Baker Street. Much of China is convinced the pair are lovers.

“It’s not just in China — plenty of places, plenty of households,” he says. “I don’t really quite know why that has caught on. It’s now taken on a political dimension to it. What started as a bit of fun — a slightly irreverent, sly, mocking thing — has now turned into, for some people, if you don’t think they’re gay, then you’re denying they’re gay and you are somehow homophobic. I mean genuinely — it’s that strong. It’s very odd, the fact that it has become a po-faced, political thing.”

Where does this relationship, at once fractious and deeply affectionate, come from? “Chemistry just happens or it doesn’t; you can’t work at it, you can’t manufacture it. Obviously it helps if people have got their chops about them and can actually do the work. But there are plenty of good actors who you could put together who don’t have that chemistry. We were lucky. It just worked.”

Freeman wasn’t in Los Angeles to collect his award because he is playing Richard III at the Trafalgar Studios in London’s West End. Cumberbatch wasn’t there either, leading Sherlock’s co-creator, Steven Moffat, to joke that he was “too big to come the Emmys”.

The suspicion with Freeman was that he doesn’t much fancy the gilded backslappery of Hollywood. “Look, if I wasn’t doing a play, I would definitely have been at the Emmys — I don’t mind all that. It’s nice for a little holiday, but it’s not my life. I think most of the people who were there, it’s not their life either. Everyone basically goes home to their family and puts the kettle on.”

Freeman has come a long way from playing the sales representative Tim Canterbury in The Office, but the critics have been quick to draw a thread through his work. Tim, John Watson, Bilbo Baggins, and Lester Nygaard in Fargo. The everyman, the ordinary guy everyone can identify with, the middle-of-the-road Englishman; sardonic, wry and slightly low on self-confidence.

Freeman isn’t convinced. In fact, he’s a bit fed up with it. He is generally polite and good-natured, but the merest mention of the word everyman rouses his ire. “People ask, ‘Is there any difference between Tim and John Watson?’ Well, I’m afraid if you can’t see that, you’re a f****** moron. People have no business writing about the art of television if they can’t see it.

“I’m not denying you can’t find a thread between the parts I’ve played, which you could probably do with every single other actor working. Whether it’s me or Daniel Day-Lewis — he’s not often going to play a bit-part waiter. I think a lot of it is Pavlovian; people see what they want to see.

“I have played some things that have a thread in them but that’s never been my plan. To be honest, I’ve played lots of other things, and they’ve not been that famous, they’ve not been huge hits.”

Freeman, here playing Bilbo Baggins, says it is wrong to suggest he plays only one kind of characterFreeman, here playing Bilbo Baggins, says it is wrong to suggest he plays only one kind of character (Warner Bros)

Freeman’s gig as Richard III is one of these less-famous roles. He’s garnered mixed reviews, with some critics suggesting his performance is “underpowered” and “lacks all spark and charisma”.

Is he less well suited to playing a king? “What I’m able to play in Richard III is something that I’ve had about me for as long as I’ve been acting. It’s a surprise to other people but that’s always been in there. It was all that stuff that made me want to act, it wasn’t thinking, ‘Oh, I want to be a lovelorn everyman.’”

He doesn’t have Cumberbatch’s swagger, but Freeman has plenty of confidence in himself and his acting ability. The remarkable journey of the tortoise and the hare will continue next year, when the pair are reunited for series four of Sherlock. The character of Watson has married Mary Morstan, who turned out to be a gun-toting secret agent with a murky past.

Will Sherlock leave them alone to be happily married? “Presumably not. It’s the tensions within those characters that make the show. Now that Mary is very much part of the setup, that can’t be a happy, or rather a straightforward, thing. Without the tension between John and Sherlock there is no show. So no, it won’t be un-rocky.”

What is this interview even

bert-and-ernie-are-gay THEY LIE

I am trying to be strong! mostly because my entire being yearns for that day, that glorious hour, in 2015 or 2017 or whenever it arrives, that shining moment in which half a billion teenaged girls* on the Internet are proven inarguably RIGHT, and I will fall to my knees weeping & offering my soul to the gods of social justice.

* FCVO “teenaged girls” where that includes, you know, like fifty-something gender-ambiguous dads, et al. (just gleefully addressing the stereotype)

we are right!! WE ARE!!

if johnlock is not delivered it’s not us being delusional, it’s them deliberately misleading us, and queerbaiting us, and that would mean they’re shit, and that the BBC condones queerbaiting, and SORRY NO I’M NOT BUYING THIS. Mark Gatiss wants this, Steven Moffat writes this like a boss, the BBC report should be read as a run-on commentary for the show, and the evidence piles up to the high heavens.

We are right, TJLC is real, they are going to get together, we are going to see kisses and (if we survive the kisses) we’ll see them in bed (I haven’t said we’ll see them fucking, because we won’t, but THERE WILL BE NO DOUBT that they have, or are about to.) 

And whenever you’re in doubt, come to me, bert-and-ernie-are-gay. I have faith to spare.

Filed under martin freeman

10,474 notes




Look at them. Look at the brothers.  

Look at the haughty raised chin because appearances must always be kept, even if you’ve been caught on the hop by emotions or at the gym.

Look at the posture, ditto on appearances. Whether in a morning suit or lycra, a Holmes maintains his posture.  And his composure.

And the hand. The left hand and the curling fingers of impatience? Frustration? Frustration because they are brothers and love eachother really but it can’t easily be expressed?

Was this directed? Did one watch the other and take the gestures on?

Acting. It’s rather lovely.  Especially when done so blinking well.

I love me holmes bros <3

I adore the Holmes boys.

(Source: holmeswilliam, via penns-woods)

Filed under GIF set

3,563 notes







"it was surgery"

"she saved sherlock’s life"

"shooting him where she did was necessary"

Well, shooting him was for her. Shooting him where she shot him and calling the ambulance was for him

If she wanted him dead, he would be. Hitting the head (never mind at that distance) isn’t hard. Shooting him where he would be out cold but could still survive with medical assistance (while taking the risk that he might die, nonetheless - not arguing that point) is surgery.

But if she shot him in the head, Sherlock would be dead before John reached him, and John would consequently immediately go for the murderer, and she wouldn’t have got away. Game over for happy families. She’d be in prison for life and she’d lose John immediately.

She did try to kill Sherlock, I am sure of that but she also needed to make sure he didn’t die immediately.

That way, John would be occupied trying to help Sherlock, and she would have a chance to get away without being unmasked.

So nah, I don’t buy the surgery, not trying to kill, just being reckless thing. She wanted him gone, and she wanted to get away as well. The only surgery was her skill in choosing where to shoot to ensure that both happened.

She’s bad that one….thankfully there’s an east wind coming, and either Mycroft, Mummy Holmes or John himself is going to make sure she doesn’t ‘kill’ anyone that John loves again…..

Whether or not she’s a “bad one” remains to be seen, but she would have had five minutes to get away. There is no way John would have let Sherlock lie dead on the floor to run after someone who is long gone.

I don’t think it would have taken him that long to come in there, and if Sherlock really was dead and there was just the slightest chance the killer was still close John would go after them. Even if, logically, the chance was near zero, John wouldn’t think that far. He’d be consumed with rage and wanting to see blood for the murder of his best friend. So I’m finding that theory and explanation above very likely and reasonable. 

Only other thing I can imagine is that she sort of left the very, very, veeery slim chance of Sherlock’s survival so that she could a) achieve the above and b) soothe her own conscience, maybe. That used to be my reading of this, but I highly doubt now that she had much of such a conscience. Much too opportunistic and self-centred for that. 

I don’t think there’s anything that remains to be seen. She has redeeming qualities, yes, but she puts her own interests far above any usual morality. She’d literally kill to serve her own purposes instead of doing the right thing here, or even just a ‘morally questionable’ one by shooting him in the leg or shoulder. Or knocking Magnussen out first. No, those things all couldn’t have worked because then she would have had to deal with Sherlock and get him to keep her secret, and that was something she considered impossible, so she made the only other choice: killing him. 

Yeah. If Mary wasn’t going to kill Sherlock but wanted John to not chase after her, she could have shot him in his thigh, or arm, or something else other than a VERY VULNERABLE PART OF HIS PERSON.

If she didn’t mean to shoot Sherlock, her reactions to their entire conversation at the houses DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE. Hell, at the confrontation at the empty houses, she looked APPALLED when Sherlock suggested it was surgery. She asked him “What case?”. She seems shifty at the confrontation at Baker St when Sherlock is trying to convince John of her lies. Just… the characters’ actions / reactions in the whole second half of HLV don’t make sense if Sherlock wasn’t meant to die.

Just my humble opinion.

Filed under mary wank