![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
spacemutineer.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
sherlock60Let's talk telly in the discussion post for Granada's TV adaptation of The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax. If you haven't seen this episode yet, you can find it at YouTube and on DVD. Follow me behind the jump for my random thoughts and impressions. Please add your own in the comments!
Canon discussion for The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax is available in this week's canon discussion post.
- Does anyone know what Watson was doing off at the same hotel as Lady Frances? His health is as good a guess as any, as he mentions his leg and shoulder in one of his letters to Holmes, so I guess we'll go with that. But why isn't Holmes with him? He doesn't seem too wrapped up in a case, given he has time to play with improvised dolls and do some origami.
- Is Watson a little (or a lot) in love with Frances? Smitten at the very least seems likely, given how much he gravitates toward her, confessing he thinks of her constantly. Watson's a gentleman, and would protect any lady, but this seems a step beyond that.
- Where exactly are Watson and Frances, by the way? Switzerland? A telegram seems to be slower in arriving than Holmes traveling there himself from London.
- Granada makes several character changes for the better in this adaptation. Holy Peters is a known murderer, which gives Holmes' reaction to the lady's disappearance the proper weight and urgency. Also, Philip Green is more sympathetic, returning to earn Frances' love after 15 years away making something of himself. It's still creepy, however, that she never makes any indication she wants to be with him yet ends up completely in his care when she is brain damaged from the chloroform. He treats her with great love, but what if she didn't want it?
- I adore Watson attacking Green in the bank. Holmes mentions "my colleague…" but he's already gone to confront the ruffian he's been waiting for. He shouts a few accusations at him and then promptly tackles him to the ground. Nice. But what about Watson shooting Peters from behind as he runs away at the end of the episode? Is that acceptable? I know Peters was a murderer, a fraud, and a thief, but shooting a man from the back is usually not considered decent. Credit where it's due, though: the doctor's still a fine marksman, hitting a fleeing man at distance cleanly and non-lethally in the leg.
Canon discussion for The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax is available in this week's canon discussion post.
- Does anyone know what Watson was doing off at the same hotel as Lady Frances? His health is as good a guess as any, as he mentions his leg and shoulder in one of his letters to Holmes, so I guess we'll go with that. But why isn't Holmes with him? He doesn't seem too wrapped up in a case, given he has time to play with improvised dolls and do some origami.
- Is Watson a little (or a lot) in love with Frances? Smitten at the very least seems likely, given how much he gravitates toward her, confessing he thinks of her constantly. Watson's a gentleman, and would protect any lady, but this seems a step beyond that.
- Where exactly are Watson and Frances, by the way? Switzerland? A telegram seems to be slower in arriving than Holmes traveling there himself from London.
- Granada makes several character changes for the better in this adaptation. Holy Peters is a known murderer, which gives Holmes' reaction to the lady's disappearance the proper weight and urgency. Also, Philip Green is more sympathetic, returning to earn Frances' love after 15 years away making something of himself. It's still creepy, however, that she never makes any indication she wants to be with him yet ends up completely in his care when she is brain damaged from the chloroform. He treats her with great love, but what if she didn't want it?
- I adore Watson attacking Green in the bank. Holmes mentions "my colleague…" but he's already gone to confront the ruffian he's been waiting for. He shouts a few accusations at him and then promptly tackles him to the ground. Nice. But what about Watson shooting Peters from behind as he runs away at the end of the episode? Is that acceptable? I know Peters was a murderer, a fraud, and a thief, but shooting a man from the back is usually not considered decent. Credit where it's due, though: the doctor's still a fine marksman, hitting a fleeing man at distance cleanly and non-lethally in the leg.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}