Friday, June 28, 2013
The Middletown Press announced that Gillette Castle will offer free outdoor performances this summer - in particular “on July 6 and running until Aug. 11, "Sherlock Holmes and the Speckled Band" takes the outdoor stage." For more information on this free adaptation of Gillette’s dramatized version of “The Speckled Band", see East Haddam Stage Company. For those unfamiliar, Gillette Castle, situated on the banks of the Connecticut River, was commissioned and designed by early 20th century actor William Gillette who of course played the role of the master sleuth in Sherlock Holmes (penned by Gillette himself) onstage starting in 1899 more than 1,300 times over a thirty year period. I’ve always felt that the power and influence of seeing Gillette don the role of Holmes was best articulated by Booth Tarkington (Pulitzer Prize-winning author) who told Gillette, “I would rather see you play Sherlock Holmes than be a child again on Christmas morning." The legendary actor and Holmes aficionado resided at Gillette Castle until his death in 1937.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
But that is not what this post is about.
I have started to 'label' my posts in like categories so viewers can search topics that are similar.
I am doing this to help my readers find like posts and also to make it easier for me to find past posts when looking to link posts together.
I have finished back about 20% of them but have a ways to go yet.
So look to the right hand side to find the list of labels and clic on the one you want to see like posts about.
Please feel free to suggest labels I have not though of yet.
Most posts will link to more than one label.
(The biggest reason I have done this is so B.K. can go back and read any positive reviews I have for 'Elementary'.)
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
UP YOUR ALLEY
An ode to Dr. Watson: Sherlock Holmes sidekick deserves better — and more stage time in Suicide Club
BY TARRA GAINES
6.15.13 | 4:31 pm
Photo by T. Charles Erickson
Credit is due.
Behind every great Sherlock Holmes is the caretaking, ass-kicking, sidekick Dr. Watson. At least, that’s the character I look to when judging a Sherlock Holmes mystery.
That’s who my eyes kept wandering to during the Alley Theatre’s current production of Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of the Suicide Club, which runs through June 23.
Sherlock Holmes has been the deducing giant whose influence has cast a long shadow over mystery fiction since Arthur Conan Doyle created him in 1887. Yet, at the beginning of the 21st century he seems to have had an accident while attempting to solve an experimental cloning case, because everywhere we look is a myriad of Sherlocks invading every medium.
Everywhere a Sherlock
He currently resides under his own name in two television shows, Sherlock and Elementary. (Tip: never get in the middle of an online discussion between BBC version and CBS version Holmes fans. They will virtually cut you from both sides.) But he has assumed an alias on many more shows.
Is he a high functioning sociopath? A raging drug addict? Does he have Asperger's, or is he just an ass?
A year ago, he retired as the pill popping curmudgeon diagnostician, House. He’s thinly disguised himself as two fake psychic detectives, and there are bits of him woven into the literary genetic code of every television crime scene investigator swabbing the murder weapon for DNA. In the movies, he’s Robert Downey Jr.’s other manic, genius character.
No matter how brilliant these versions of Sherlock are, would we really want to spend even an hour in their presence, if loyal Watson wasn’t standing behind Sherlock, rolling his (or her) eyes at the great detective?
For Holmes couldn’t fall into the 21st century cloning machine without Watson jumping in worriedly after him, and so with every new Sherlock we get a new version of Watson.
Always the sidekick, but still heroic
It’s the Watsons, really all suffering sidekick characters, who fascinate me. Though relegated to the unassuming assistant and chronicler role, Watson is an intelligent doctor, crack shot and war vet. He’s the only man (or woman as the version may be) who can play caretaker to the diva detective while never getting subsumed by his overbearing personality.
The Alley Theatre’s production of Sherlock Holmes and the Adventure of the Suicide Club harkens back to retro Holmes and Watson, but the play is a mix of old and new achieved by contemporary playwright Jeffrey Hatcher marrying Conan Doyle’s characters to the plot of the Robert Louis Stevenson’s “The Young Man with the Cream Tarts” from his collection of short fiction,The Suicide Club.
He’s the only man who can play caretaker to the diva detective while never getting subsumed by his overbearing personality.
Alley company member Todd Waite portrays a middle aged, world-weary Holmes, who at the beginning of the play seems on the verge of weeping for there are no more criminal worlds to conquer, no intricate puzzles to solve.
Sidney Williams’s Watson on the other hand seems quite happy in the autumn of his life, having both a comfortable medical practice and wife to go home to if, ever there comes a time of no more mysteries.
But that is not a current problem because Holmes himself is the moody riddle Watson must decipher. Holmes manages to be so annoying and rude even Watson is driven away, and the audience is left to follow Holmes into the smoky London night where he will later look for solace in the strange suicide club that mixes gentlemanly wagering with the chance for club members to off their despondent cohorts.
But true fans of Sherlock Holmes will know Watson can’t be long gone from the scene, and thankfully in this version he’s not.
Though Hatcher along with directors Mark Shanahan and Gregory Boyd build a solid little conspiracy for Holmes to unravel, by the middle of the second act it becomes more and more apparent through simple process of elimination who is responsible for the suicidal murders. Still, the play's focus on mystery is refreshing, as it seems lately Holmes writers are less interested in creating nifty plots for Sherlock to untangle and more in dissecting his psyche and brain chemistry.
Is he a high functioning sociopath? A raging drug addict? Does he have Asperger's, or is he just an ass?
Waite’s Holmes is indeed a bit of an ass, but he does care about human beings and lives lost, also something not always guaranteed with contemporary Sherlocks. However, for me the most poignant moment in the play came when Holmes pauses for a whole 30 seconds to contemplate the nature of friendship and the honesty and kindness, or at least the Sherlockian version of kindness, he owes Watson.
At first, Suicide Club’s Watson looks to be the play’s bungling narrator and comic relief, something I abhor in my Watsons, but by the (spoiler alert) second half of the play, we see a Watson only half a leap behind Sherlock’s deductive jumps. He’s the one character, who can keep up with Holmes while willingly putting up with him.
Hatcher gives most of the best lines to Sherlock and his brother Mycroft, played with the driest deadpan by James Black, but Williams gets in several telling jibes at Holmes himself.
But I wanted more because I look to Watson to represent me on stage, screen or page as the one person who can affectionately give the genius detective the figurative punch in the face he sometimes so richly deserves.
Show will study Holmes and London
The relationship between Sherlock Holmes and London will be the subject of a new exhibition to open in 2014.
The Museum of London's exhibition will look at the interplay between Holmes and the city, a source of fascination for the fictional detective.
In one of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories Holmes remarks: "It is a hobby of mine to have an exact knowledge of London."
The Museum of London says the exhibition will reveal as much about London as Sherlock Holmes.
Sharon Ament, Director of the Museum of London, said: "We all think we know Sherlock Holmes, but do we really?
"The lens through which the Museum of London will examine the inimitable detective will reveal more about London than you might guess, but then you'd expect nothing less."
The museum says it will "look beyond the familiar deerstalker, pipe and cape" in search of the "real, complex and multi-faceted" Sherlock Holmes.
It claims the show will "mirror the way he used his own remarkable observational powers and analytical mind to reveal the truth".
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes - #9 - Charlie Chaplin (or is it really Geraldine Chaplin? or is it really Raquel Welch?)
OK, this week I picked, for me, a fairly easy one (I already knew one of the answers), but none-the-less a fun one, with some interesting facts. (Any good Sherlockian I am sure already knows this stuff, right?)
So here goes.
Sir Charlie Chapline - 1889-1977
So here goes.
Sir Charlie Chapline - 1889-1977
Starting in 1903 he toured with H.A.Saintsbury - 1869
in Charles Frohmans' 1903 production of -
'Sherlock Holmes' -
(This is a poster of Cecil Barth production with H.A.Saintsbury in it.)
Where Charlie Chaplin played Billy the page boy -
Which lead to Charlie again playing Billy with the famous William Gillette
Chaplin would tour in the roll of Billy the pageboy for almost two and a half years.
Now this is a pretty easy connection for one of the greatest actors of anyone's time.
But it doesn't stop here. (Although maybe it should)
In 1943 Charlie married Oona O'Neill
In 1944 they had a daughter, Geraldine Chaplin -
who went on to star in the 1973 (one of my all time favorite films) adaption of 'The Three Musketeers'
Which also starred Charlton Heston
Who's Sherlock Holmes connection we made in Seven Degrees of Sherlock Holmes number 8
But we could really skip the Charlton Heston connection because she is related to Billy the page boy.
(But that wouldn't be any fun.)
But the Three Musketeers connection also allows me to post pictures of one on my childhood favorites, and her connection to Sherlock Holmes.
(I like her for her acting, really!)
Who also starred in the 1973 film (with, once again, Charlton Heston)
as Constance Bonacieux -
(If there is demand, I may have to do the Raquel Welch connection again down the road.)
It seems, so far, we just can't get very far away from Sherlock Holmes.
Have a great day.
Monday, June 24, 2013
I saw a recent pole, on another blog, asking; “Is the world of Sherlock Holmes getting to saturated with all the new movies and TV shows?”
Well, actually, yes. . . and no.
It is true that it has been many years, if ever, since the world Sherlock Holmes has had the wealth of material that is available now to draw upon. With new books, e-publishing, movies and TV shows, it doesn’t take much to find a source to feed anyone’s passion for Holmes.
There are many more games involving the great detective. Pastiche and short stories and novels abound to suit whatever form one seeks.
Is it all good? No, probably not. But it does keep the game alive and interesting.
There is often debate surrounding most of the works out there right now. Seemingly most of the debate surrounds the three visual presentations that are for the most part responsible for Holmes’ popularity at the moment; The RDJ movies, ‘Sherlock’ the English TV presentation, and our own ‘Elementary’, which seems to take most of the flack of these three.
Spawned from the popularity these shows and films have produced, are hundreds books and pastiches dealing with the great detective. Some try, whether succeeding or not, to remain faithful to the original, while others go off in any number of directions, from Steampumk, occult and any number of other genre’s you can chose from.
Some of it is scholarly and some, well, not so.
This popularity has even created a debate about whether one is a devotee or fan of Sherlock Holmes. And I think a very strong argument can be made for the need of these two distinctions.
Lines will be drawn in the sand about which side of the line we fall on, while in truth it should not be an offense to be in either camp.
But that is not want I want to discuss here today, but it is relevant.
Let us assume, not rightly or wrongly, but just for the sake of argument, that a Sherlockian (Holmesian) is someone who came by Sherlock Holmes by way, for the most part, of reading the original Canon. Either picking up the books in the beginning or seeking the books after seeing an earlier movie or, let’s say, the Brett series. But, however, the original stories are now the foundation for his or her Canonical love. When all else pales in comparison, a Sherlockian will always seek comfort in the original 60 stories.
The Canon is the source for all debate and reference about anything else that follows, whether in book form or on film. Stray too far from the Canon, whether we find it fun or not, the Sherlockian will be, at least somewhat, disappointed. It doesn’t mean we won’t still ‘Play the Game’, but the works will hardly seem real relevant.
Now, again for the sake of argument, let’s say a fan is someone who has come into the world of Sherlock Holmes by way of the TV show ‘Sherlock’ (I am going to leave the RDJ movies out of the argument because at the moment RDJ draws from a much larger pool because of his popularity in other movies) and that is the source of most of their knowledge of Sherlock Holmes. These are the ‘Cumberbabes’ and others who find the lead actor the biggest reason for liking the show. (I don’t have a problem with that and feel he is a great Sherlock Holmes, or at least could be). It would argue that the appeal of this show has almost become, to many, cult like, a distinction most Sherlockians would never want attached to their names. Roll playing if you will.
The appeal of the show has also made for some incredible merchandising. Everything from IPhone covers to the tea sets used in the shows. ‘I am Sherlocked’.
The show has also encouraged some worthwhile debate, and some not so worthwhile debate about the mental state and sexual leanings of Sherlock Holmes.
.And all this is wonderful, and great, for the Sherlockian and the fan.
Where the problem is (and this is just for the sake of argument, because, really, there is no problem) is wading through all the stuff that is out there and taking away, without breaking the bank account, all that is valuable to your chosen devotion to Holmes.
The ‘market’ is just so saturated at the moment, that picking and choosing has become a very time consuming adventure.
A lot this can be blamed, and I am not sure blamed is the right word, on the easy of e-publishing and the advent of blogging and web pages.
I remember when I started my Holmesian pursuits it could be months or longer between new material to add to my collection. There were certain books you had to hunt down, and new material came out rather sporadically.
Now new material, in the form of e-publishing, comes out almost daily and one must choose ones source carefully.
And here is where the ‘Yes’ comes in, in our original question.
Right now the world of Sherlock Holmes, I believe, is too saturated for the Sherlockian. The Sherlockian who is wanting to keep up with what is relevant to his or her world of Sherlock Holmes, without having the wade through a lot of chaff to achieve that goal.
I think with so much out there right now, some really bad stuff is getting too much attention, while some really good stuff may be being missed.
Such is the game I guess.
But here is also where the ‘No’ comes in, in our original question.
For the fan, the ones seeking anything new on Sherlock Holmes the world is not too saturated yet. They can’t get enough at the moment, especially if it is something that puts Sherlock Holmes in a different light from the original stuff. Their Holmes can be a sociopath, or Bi or Gay, and their Moriarty can be way out there in left field. And that’s OK.
They are the ones, at least for the time being, that are keeping Holmes in the public eye at the moment.
If we really think about it, it is only to much, or ‘Yes’, for those of us (and I put myself into that category) who like our Sherlock the way we have him pictured in our minds and don’t want to ‘defend’ or argue that anymore except to those we deem of like mind, Sherlockians.
It is ‘No’ for those who can’t get enough, in whatever incarnation, of Sherlock Holmes and prefer him less ‘Victorian’ than us ‘Sherlockians’.
The true answer to the question will only come in a few years, when RDJ no longer makes another Holmes movie, and ‘Sherlock’ has run out of steam because Mr. Cumberbatch has too many movie projects going on, and ‘Elementary’ no longer pulls in the ratings, when we see a mass exodus to the next popular icon.
The true test will be measured when the we see how many ‘fans’ keep ‘playing the game’ when ‘Sherlock’ is only in reruns.
If they then maintain a love of Sherlock Holmes, in whatever form they wish to pursue him, I think then we can call them ‘Sherlockians’.
At the moment it seems the ones who deem themselves ‘Sherlockians’ are almost putting the ones they deem ‘fans’ into the camp where we put ‘Dr Who’ fans.
I think there are several interesting things to observe over the next several years will be.
One, has the number of societies, scion or not, increased. And if so, once the current popularity dwindles, will those societies survive
Has the membership in existing societies increased or does the modern Sherlock Holmes fan not need the society structure that was once the cornerstone of the Sherlockian world. (I think this is something that can be discussed for many organizations now-a-days.)
And lastly, are the older societies open minded enough, at the moment, to welcome ‘fans’ into their world, hoping eventually to create another ‘Sherlockian’.
I know I have Sherlock Holmes in a place I am comfortable with. But I also know I don’t mind exploring with him in other possibilities, that I am also comfortable with. I have my lines I don’t like him to cross, and I won’t go there with you with him.
But I consider myself pretty open minded . . . . some what.
But that is only my opinion. And I look forward to yours.
Friday, June 21, 2013
You can tell that Dan Amdriacco loves his subject and is a devote Sherlockian and treats Holmes and Watson with the respect they deserve.
The story is however nothing new and relies on many things we already find in the canon.
We have here a case mentioned in THOR and it being solved by Holmes in 1895. "Among those unfinished tales, " Dr. Watson writes, "is that of Mr. James Phiilmore, who, stepping back inot his own home to get his umbrella, was never more seen in this world."
The writing style is fine, and is very suited to a Holmes short story, but it lacks filling and any sense of the hunt.
The ending, although original, hardly seemed so, feeling more like it was taken from several other stories.
Without giving the ending away, it was hardly satisfying.
I will check out his other works because, like I said, he has a very good style of writing.
I read the ebook version.
I give it . . .
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Emmys: 'Elementary's' Jonny Lee Miller Revels in the Idiosyncrasies of Sherlock Holmes
For Miller, Watson as Sherlock's equal -- and not a love interest -- was a relief. "You can play with certain things, and you can bend and shape characters to a certain extent, but if you bend them too far, they’re going to break," he tells THR.
Sherlock Holmes has never been so prevalent.
For Miller, who previously starred in Eli Stone andDexter, going back to the original texts by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was crucial to developing a character already so fully ingrained in the pop culture psyche. "I think the important thing to do was to go back to the basics, back to the books," he tells The Hollywood Reporter. What piqued Miller's interest was how "understanding" and "helpful" Sherlock -- his a recovering addict -- was, traits the actor believes were rarely communicated.With a Sherlock Holmes film franchised led byRobert Downey Jr. and BBC's Sherlock TV series starring Benedict Cumberbatch, CBS took a small gamble when it greenlighted its one-hour drama Elementary. Centered on the private eye, flanked by a female Watson, the show is set in contemporary New York City. The changes have certainly paid off. So much so that THR's chief TV critic Tim Goodman, in his review of the pilot,declared Jonny Lee Miller "superb and compelling as Sherlock."
THR caught up with Miller to discuss tackling an iconic character like Sherlock, how he made sure his iteration was unique and playing the crucial Moriarty/Irene Adler twist.
The Hollywood Reporter: Playing a well-established character like Sherlock Holmes sometimes has its baggage. How did you make sure that your portrayal was unique?
Jonny Lee Miller: I think the important thing to do was to go back to the basics, back to the books. I feel that [creator] Rob [Doherty] did a terrific job in his initial script with bringing up certain themes to the forefront: the recovery, all that stuff was a great idea, and the new relationship between Holmes and Watson. The way they are thrown together in life, that was a great starting point. But for me to make the character, I had to go back to the books and see what interested me about the man that I hadn’t necessarily seen much of recently, or ever, and rebuild him using the original material.
THR: Can you speak to specific traits that you noticed from the books that haven’t been so prominent in past iterations, like BBC’s Sherlock or theSherlock Holmes film franchise?
Miller: In the books, I found him to be a much more understanding guy. I feel that he really likes people a little bit more than I had seen recently -- not that he can necessarily communicate that very well. He likes the underdog, and he likes people who are downtrodden, who are having a hard time. He generally wants to help. I found him to be a much more helpful person, so I tried to put a bit of that in, even though he doesn’t quite pull it off.
THR: I noticed that you incorporated physical ticks and habits. How did you physicalize that aspect of the role?
Miller: It’s very difficult to describe how that happens. I use things from the work that I’ve done that I feel would match; I’ll take one thing from another tiny character and I’ll put that in. I wanted him to be quite wild and erratic physically. I felt that that matched his brain; it’s almost what you see in people whose brains are moving very fast, and who are struggling [at the same time]. They often have those characteristics, physically. You don’t want to overdo it, but if you do it regularly, then it seeps subconsciously into the character, and people recognize things.
THR: You’ve done several television shows prior to Elementary, like ABC'sEli Stone and CBS' Smith. What did you take from those experiences that helped you for this particular project?
Miller: Just a year or so ago, I had worked on stage [2011's Frankenstein]. I had done more physical work than I ever had before, and that really opened me up to being able to do that in a relaxed way. It’s like a dance really, and you start to understand a bit more about how this character can work without being over the top. It’s something I’ve become a lot more interested in.
THR: This show certainly lends itself to theater. The majority of the time, you're talking to people in rooms.
Miller: I think a television show allows you to do that. We’re in this different kind of reality. We’re not doing a gritty, realism film where stuff like that wouldn’t work because it’s not natural. I’m playing quite a strange character, so I feel like there’s room for it, and on television you can get away with that a bit more.
THR: As with any new show, it must have taken a few weeks to get your sea legs under you. Was there a specific episode or moment where you felt you had a firm grasp on the role and where the show was going?
Miller: Oh goodness, I don’t know about specifics, but what’s interesting is when you do a character five days a week for nine months you get to work on it unlike anything else. It’s a mixture between theater and film in that respect, in that you get to go back and revisit the character day after day after day, but you’re using different material. You get to try and perfect him. That’s a real bonus, an interesting part about doing network television.
THR: What did you discover about this character that you weren’t expecting?
Miller: I don’t know about that, I’m a pretty open-minded person. It takes a lot to shock me. I certainly didn’t want the addiction problem to go away. From the knowledge that I gathered, I felt [addiction] didn’t go away in people’s lives, and needed to be there and dealt with. Rob [and the writers] took it very seriously and did a lot of research; we’ve tweaked a lot of things to try to be very genuine about it. I was very pleased about that. I didn’t want it to be like that’s a problem he had, now that’s gone away, let’s get on with solving crimes. We handled it in a respectful way, I feel.
THR: A big point was made early on about Watson being a woman, and Rob said their relationship would remain strictly platonic. Did you view that as a relief?
Miller: Yeah. I mean, say we’re going to hook up, then it wouldn’t be Holmes and Watson because that just doesn’t happen. You can play with certain things, and you can bend and shape characters to a certain extent, but if you bend them too far, they’re going to break and they’d be something else. I think there are some things that are sacred and need to remain solid -- and their relationship is absolutely sacred.
THR: How has your working relationship with Lucy Liu evolved as the series went on?
Miller: It’s something that you can’t ever account for. It either works or it doesn’t with someone, and thankfully from day one, Lucy and I worked fantastically together and really get on. We have the same sense of humor, we laugh a lot, we try and support each other, and you go through real ups and downs. We’re in each others’ pockets for long periods of time, and you better get on with each other or you’re done. Aside from that, professionally we click. I think she’s a fabulous actor to work with. She’s really subtle, and I’ve learned a lot from her.
THR: What do you hope to see for Holmes and Watson in season two?
Miller: It’s something I’m excited about because I trust our showrunner. I trust [Rob and] those guys. You can relax, and you can know that you’re going to have good material. They do that job much better than I could. I know they’ve got characters up their sleeves, that they’ve done good groundwork with bringing characters in and I think we have a solid foundation.
THR: One of the arcs for the series was the mystery of Moriarty. How much did you know in advance about M’s identity or Rob’s grand plan?
Miller: Rob's always like, "Do you want to know what’s going on?" And I’m like, "No, I don’t." I really like to go script by script because what’s the point of having that information? If Sherlock’s not discovering it, then I don’t really want to know. There are certain things you want to know -- you get excited to hear about actors coming in to play different roles. I know a couple of characters that are coming on next season, and you’re like, "Oh yeah, that’s a really good idea!" But I like to, generally, be in the dark until the last minute.
THR: So you didn’t know about the M reveal until you got the script for that episode?
Miller: Maybe about a week before. But yeah, I knew about that one a bit earlier than I would have normally known a storyline, for sure -- but not much.
THR: In "Risk Management," when Sherlock sees Irene Adler alive after believing she was dead all this time, how did you get into that headspace?
Miller: It’s difficult. You just put yourself there. You really want to know exactly when you’re shooting that shot that’s going to be used. We could do that a lot of times actually, but I was like, "OK, you’re only going to get like one or two where it’s going to be good. So would you like it on the wide shot or close-up?" I can only probably do that a couple of times well. The more you repeat it, the less genuine it becomes. So you take yourself off to a corner, and you use whatever it takes to prepare yourself for that moment. And our crew is really good at giving you the room to do that.
THR: You're active on Twitter. What has feedback been like?
Miller: Fascinating. It’s a fine line; I started up on Twitter for a very specific reason, and now I’m getting into it. I think it’s nice to see people all over the world’s appreciation of the things they find interesting. But it’s really nice and I have a bit of fun with it. But you’ve got to keep that at an arm’s length.
THR: What’s the best part of filming in New York City?
Miller: Wow, goodness me. We film all over the city, which is phenomenal. We’re in a studio four days out of the episode and then the other four we’ll be out and about. I get to see neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island. We might find ourselves up in one of the World Trade Center buildings. You can find yourself up in Harlem or in the Bronx. One of the wonderful things about this job is you get to go to places you wouldn’t normally go to. I was up on top of the crane on red hook in Brooklyn on the last day of shooting, and you don’t get to go to these places very often. It’s New York! Are you kidding me?
THR: What were the most difficult scenes for you to film?
Miller: The scene with Irene when he finds out she’s Moriarty, that was difficult for us [Miller and Natalie Dormer, who plays Irene/Moriarty], because we really wanted it to be real. When you’re trying to juggle all of that, you want to do things realistically. So that was challenging. And also, it was a long scene, but Natalie is fantastic so that made it a lot easier for me.
Elementary returns for season two this fall.
'Elementary' Season 2 preview: Sherlock and Watson head to London and meet Sherlock's dad?
It's already been announced that next season's opener will be filmed in London for a story that's sure to explore some of Sherlock's roots, and the show's creator and executive producer Rob Doherty admits that the writers are just getting started on plans for next season. But during a conference call to discuss last night's finale, Doherty did share some of what we might see when "Elementary" returns in the fall.
"The story's still being developed," Doherty explains about the show's trip to London. "But my guess is it would only be Sherlock and Joan. I think story wise it might be hard to justify a trip for all of our players. I'd love to have Captain Gregson [in London too]. In the pilot we explained he worked and lived there for a little while. That's how he met Sherlock. So he does have some (seniority) with Scotland Yard. But at the moment I'm going to say no. Probably we're going to limit this trip to Sherlock and Joan."
But Doherty also thinks the London episode could be exactly the right time to meet a very important character. "I've always loved the idea of Sherlock's dad -- this person that is spoken of but never seen," he says. "I enjoy that aspect of it and yet if we had an opportunity to work with a great actor, somebody who could look at and go, 'Oh yes, absolutely! That's our Sherlock's dad; that's the guy who you could see parenting or not parenting Jonny Lee Miller,' we would go for it. You never know. The London episode might be the perfect time to meet Sherlock's dad and get a better sense of him and his relationship with his son."
Another storyline that's likely on tap for Season 2 is exploring more of Joan's past. "We've toyed with the idea of getting a little more into her backstory," Doherty reveals. "What really happened? How did her patient die? How much of it was her fault? What's her comfort level with the idea of a return to a surgical career? It's all fodder for Season 2."
And fans should expect the mix of episodic mysteries and longer arcs like Season 1's Moriarty saga to continue into Season 2. "I predict that next season will feel in many respects like this one," Doherty says. "We will absolutely have standalone stories and cases. But there will be certain stories that you can arc over a run or a stretch of shows. We still have to find those and identify them -- What's the kind of story we want to build over four or five, six episodes? This year we had our work cut out for us with Moriarty. We knew we wanted to get here by the end of the season."