Group No.: S17-ENG-K11 Supervisor: Ebbe Klitgård Mikkel Hill Larsen (48842) No. Of characters: 69093 (28,8 pages) Pelle Imlau-Jeppesen (49647) Language: English K3 English F2017 Roskilde University

ABSTRACT This project investigates how the antagonist James Moriarty has been portrayed as a villain in ’s motion picture : A Game of Shadows (2011) and the BBC TV Series Sherlock (2010-2017). Through a thematic analysis focusing on the subjects we have called “The Antagonist in Motion” and “Homoerocity and emotions in BBC’s Sherlock”, the project concludes the following: the film Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows creates a much more contrastive relationship between villain and hero, which can be seen as a way of incorporating the social class dynamics of Conan Doyle’s original text. However, in adapting this dynamic for a 21st century audience, the villain of Moriarty is first and foremost portrayed as a corrupt businessman rather than an elitist socialite or plain revengeful evildoer. In the BBC series the characters of Sherlock and Jim share an intimate relationship due to their many likenesses. Jim is a fluid character that navigates both gender, sexuality and personality. As a villain Jim is presented as a seductive psychopath that has no desire of money or power but has an ultimate goal of breaking Sherlock.

Page 1 of 40

NOTE TO THE READER Throughout the project we will for convenience sake refer to Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) as A Game of Shadows and the BBC series Sherlock (2010-2017) as Sherlock (in italic). The main characters appear in both stories, so to distinguish them from each other, the characters in A Game of Shadows will be referred to as Moriarty and Holmes, and the characters in Sherlock will be referred to as Jim and Sherlock.

Page 2 of 40

TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ...... 1 Note to the reader ...... 2 Introduction: Who is Moriarty? ...... 4 Area of Investigation ...... 11 Problem Formulation...... 13 Cinema and Adaptation ...... 14 From Page to Screen ...... 14 Adaptation and translation ...... 16 Analysis ...... 21 A Game of Shadows - The Antagonist in Motion ...... 21 Homoerocity and emotions in BBC’s Sherlock ...... 27 Conclusion ...... 36 Works cited: ...... 38

Page 3 of 40

INTRODUCTION: WHO IS MORIARTY? When Sir published his first story about Sherlock Holmes in 1887 no one could have foreseen that the world’s most famous detective had just been born. Since his inception Mr Holmes has been portrayed on stage and on screen repeatedly in both plays, TV- series and motion pictures. Though Moriarty has since become a well-known figure in literature’s rogue gallery, the initial idea for this project was sparked by the wish to explore the antagonist to Sherlock Holmes, as we had already explored this protagonist in a previous project: “Modernizing Sherlock - An Adaptation Study of the BBC Series Sherlock”. That project analyzed the characters of Sherlock Holmes, Dr John Watson and their relationship, and how the BBC series had modernized Sherlock Holmes for the 21st century. Wishing to turn away from the two main characters, this project wishes to examine the central antagonist of Doyle’s stories, Professor James Moriarty. Even though Moriarty is the main focus of the project it is inevitable that Sherlock Holmes himself will play a role in any endeavour to analyze the Sherlock Holmes universe. More specifically, though, the aim of this project is to analyze the character of Moriarty in two modern adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes stories: The BBC series Sherlock (2010-2017) and the film Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011), directed by Guy Ritchie. Despite that fact that the project is mainly concerned with two adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes franchise a short introduction to Moriarty in Doyle’s original stories seems fitting to provide a small portion of background knowledge surrounding the character.

Moriarty first appeared in 1893 in “The Adventure of ”. After Moriarty pursues Holmes through continental Europe the story famously describes Holmes and Moriarty plunging to their apparent deaths by the .

Page 4 of 40

“The Death of Sherlock Holmes”. , , 1893.

The other story in which Moriarty plays a significant role is “”, Doyle’s final novel about the famous detective, published in The Strand Magazine between 1914 and 1915. In the story Moriarty schemes, through his various agents, to murder a Mr John Douglas of Bristol Manor, an endeavour he eventually succeeds in. Holmes afterwards determines to bring a conclusion to Moriarty’s reign but acknowledges the task will be tiresome and lengthy. Besides the one ‘in-person’ appearance in “The Adventure of the Final Problem” and his significant behind-the-scenes role in “The Valley of Fear” Moriarty is only sporadically mentioned in five other stories.

Considering Moriarty’s brief appearances it is no wonder that the descriptions of the character and his personality are few and far in between. The clearest examples are found in The Adventure of the Final Problem. In this final story of the first volume revolving around the detective Doyle described Moriarty, through the eyes of Holmes, as follows:

“He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city, He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the first order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the center

Page 5 of 40

of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them. He does little himself. He only plans.” (Doyle 1893/1992, s. 437)

Sherlock Holmes’ machine-like personality and iron-sharp reasoning are rivaled by none save for his criminal counterpart and nemesis - . A mathematical and criminal mastermind, his intellect measures up to even that of Sherlock Holmes, the Napoleon of Crime is as ruthless as he is brilliant. Holmes continues:

“You know my powers, my dear Watson, and yet at the end of three months I was forced to confess that I had at last met an antagonist who was my intellectual equal. My horror at his crimes was lost in my admiration at his skills.” (Doyle 1893/1992, s. 437)

Moriarty and Holmes share a mutual admiration at each other’s skills and intellect. However that does not stop Holmes from trying to stop or slow down Moriarty at every turn. Or Moriarty from attempting to murder Holmes at several occasions through the actions of his vast network of agents. From nature Moriarty was gifted with extraordinary mental powers, only rivaled by his criminal insanity and lack of empathy:

“He is a man of good birth and excellent education, endowed by nature with a phenomenal mathematical faculty. (...) But the man had hereditary tendencies of the most diabolical kind. A criminal strain ran in his blood, which, instead of being modified, was increased and rendered infinitely more dangerous by his extraordinary mental powers.” (Doyle 1893/1992, p. 436)

The true brilliance of Moriarty’s criminal empire is, according to Holmes, the complete lack of suspicion the character attracts from his surroundings. He pulls the strings from behind the curtain but never gets his hands dirty. Thusly he never arouses suspicion and charging him with criminal activities would ultimately be impossible, or at least unfruitful.

“But in calling Moriarty a criminal you are uttering libel in the eyes of the law—and there lie the glory and the wonder of it! The greatest schemer of all time, the organizer of every devilry, the controlling brain of the underworld, a brain which might have made or marred the destiny of nations—that's the man! But so aloof is he from general suspicion, so immune from criticism, so admirable in his management and self- effacement, that for those very words that you have uttered he could hale you to a court and emerge with your year's pension as a solatium for his wounded character. Is he not the celebrated author of The Dynamics of an Asteroid, a book which ascends to such

Page 6 of 40

rarefied heights of pure mathematics that it is said that there was no man in the scientific press capable of criticizing it? Is this a man to traduce? Foulmouthed doctor and slandered professor—such would be your respective roles! That's genius, Watson.” (Doyle 1929, p. 409)

“Illustration of James Moriarty”. Sidney Paget. The Strand Magazine. 1893.

Moriarty’s physical appearance in Doyle’s original stories, as imagined by the regular illustrator Sidney Paget above, was that of an elder gentleman with strong bird-like facial features, not unlike those of Holmes himself. With a forehead doming out in a curve, and two deeply- sunken eyes, his head moves sideways in a strange reptilian fashion, according to Holmes himself. Moriarty conveys calmness on the surface but possesses a fiery disposition underneath when his plan are thwarted or his liberty is at stake. Then his true nature comes bursting forth and the moral insanity below is revealed.

Despite only appearing prominently in two of Conan Doyle’s original stories James Moriarty is arguably one of the most famous villains of all time, which could in part be credited to his many depictions in tv- and movie adaptations. As the co-creator of the BBC series put it: “Doyle got it right first time; he invented the super villain.” (Jones 2013). The apparent renewed popularity the detective has seen recently has simultaneously sparked an

Page 7 of 40 increased interest in the criminal genius Moriarty, seen by the increasingly important role Moriarty plays in contemporary adaptations. Two of the most recent, famous and critically acclaimed adaptations of the classic detective stories are the aforementioned BBC TV-series Sherlock and the motion picture Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Both adaptations sees Holmes pinned against Moriarty in elaborate battles of wits and intellectual prowess and in the case of the BBC series the main protagonist and antagonist clash at several occasions. Both the actors in the movie and the series have become synonymous with their respective character in the eyes of contemporary audiences.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows hit theaters on the 25th of December 2011. Directed by the English filmmaker Guy Ritchie, this mystery action thriller is the the sequel to the 2009 film Sherlock Holmes, also directed by Ritchie. With his two adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes universe and his 2017 film King Arthur: Legend of the Sword Guy Ritchie has become famous for his work with adaptations over the last decade. The movie brings back Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes, Jude Law as Dr John Watson and introduces Jared Harris as Professor James Moriarty. With a metascore of 48 from metacritic.com, a score of 60 % on RottenTomatoes and a 7,5 rating on IMDB the motion picture was overall positively received, however most critics agreed that it did not live up to the first movie. Despite a slow start at the box office compared to its predecessor the movie ended up as a favourite with audiences and grossed just shy of 550.000.000 USD worldwide.1

1 Source: IMDB “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1515091/business?ref_=tt_ql_dt_4

Page 8 of 40

Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes and Jared Harris as James Moriarty in Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

The BBC series, created by writer and Mark Gatiss, is set in contemporary and stars as Sherlock Holmes, as Dr John Watson and as Jim Moriarty. An action-packed crime and drama show, series three became the most watched drama show since 2001.

With a total of no more than 13 episodes the series consists of four seasons with three feature film length episodes of 90 minutes. In addition to the twelve episodes the creators released the stand-alone special in 2016. As opposed to the rest of the show the special is set in Victorian London. Widely acclaimed, the series boasts an incredible 9,2 rating on IMDB and has been nominated and won a wide variety of awards, including a Golden Globe, Emmy’s for Best Writing, Best Leading Actor among others and the BAFTA Audience Award.2

2 Source: IMDB. “Sherlock”. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1475582/awards

Page 9 of 40

Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes and Andrew Scott as Jim Moriarty in BBC’s TV- series Sherlock (2010-2017)

Our initial curiosity, spurred on by further reading and points of interest, inevitably led to the central question that would eventually guide our investigation: How is Moriarty portrayed as an antagonist in the two selected adaptations?

Page 10 of 40

AREA OF INVESTIGATION In order to answer the question above, the project will examine the character of James Moriarty in two modern renditions of Conan Doyle’s stories, respectively in the BBC TV-series Sherlock (2010-) and in the film Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011). As mentioned in the introduction Moriarty appears scarcely in the original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle stories. For that reason and due to our specific area of interest the original stories will serve merely as a starting- and reference point to the character during the analysis. Both adaptations can be said to be fairly true to the source material, though in vastly different ways, as shall become apparent in our analysis. The main difference to notice is, of course, the fact that the BBC show is set in contemporary London, opposed to a Victorian setting in the original stories and Ritchie’s adaptation.

We are primarily interested in the thematic aspects of the character’s rendition, meaning, we will be looking at the core concepts and core characterizations, as they unfold in the narratives of the different versions. Specifically, this entails dealing with some themes, which we have found to prevalent in the modern adaptations. The first part of the analysis we have named “The Antagonist in Motion”, and this part deals with Moriarty in the Guy Ritchie film “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”. This first section of the analysis looks at how the character of Moriarty both in appearances and in characterization has evolved into a villain suited for the 21st century, while also drawing on classic villainess tropes of old, dating as far back as Shakespeare and other Elizabethan villain characters. Conan Doyle’s original rendition of Moriarty is obviously inspired by some of the many other great villains of literature, so in this first part of the analysis, we shall see how the modern adaptation takes the notion of villain further. The second part will then be concerned with the BBC TV-series and is called “Homoerocity and emotions in BBC’s Sherlock”. This part of the analysis deals with the apparent sexualization of both Sherlock and Jim and in particular the latent homoerocity that Moffat and Gatiss have incorporated to be a central part of the villain in the TV series. Furthermore the creators have somewhat departed with the traditional personality associated with Moriarty. Both Sherlock and Jim appear to be more emotional creatures compared to their literary predecessors This section then also concerns itself with the development of Jim into a true psychopath and his likenesses and differences with Sherlock in the BBC show.

This being the case, we have found it advantageous to employ André Bazin’s theoretical approach to adaptations, which focuses on what he calls “the spirit” of the work. Although Bazin produced the majority of his work between 1943 and up to his untimely death in 1958,

Page 11 of 40 his theories about cinema continue to be an inspiration within the field of adaptation studies. In his 2017 book André Bazin, the Critic as Thinker, R. J. Cardullo described Bazin as being perhaps “(...) the most influential critic ever to have written about cinema. He is credited with almost single-handedly establishing the study of film as an accepted intellectual pursuit (...)” (Cardullo 2017, s. xv). It has been our desire to work with the Conan Doyle universe in its modern renditions on a mainly thematic level, which is what made us gravitate toward the work of Bazin. He is arguably one of the premiere cinematic theorists, so we thought it reasonable to go straight to the source, so to speak; to the prime mover of this theoretical framework. Through this theoretical framework, we deem it possible to derive meaning and discern differences in literary adaptations that come close to what one might call a thematic analysis of text. The discussion about adaptation and the merits of formulating a theoretical framework around adaptation studies has been going on nearly for as long as the art of adaptation itself. Bazin might be said to have been at the forefront of this discussion in his own time, however, the discussion did by no means end with him. Rather, the discussion has, especially in recent years, been reinvigorated by the cross-field inclusion of Translation Theory. Several translation theorists have proposed compelling arguments as to why this field might serve to broaden the theoretical toolkit of adaptation studies, which for a long time has been limited to the rigid notion of “fidelity”. In the Theory Section, therefore, we will unfold the theory of a prominent translation theorists, Lawrence Venuti of Temple University in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, whose work has (among other things) attempted an inclusion of a more critical methodology in the field of adaptation studies, using some of the well-formulated tools from translation theory - most notably, the category of interpretants. Literary theorist Linda Hutcheon’s work will also be included, as her work provides the theoretical justification for adaptations as being equal representations of a work of literature (or any other medium for that matter), and the the merits of what adaptations in fact are. In short, an adaptation can be described as “An acknowledged transposition of a recognizable other work of works, [or] a creative and an interpretive act of appropriation/salvaging, [or] an extended intertextual engagement with the adapted work” (Hutcheon 2012, p. 8). More on all three theorists later. Between them, they form the theoretical basis for our own work and they have informed the way in which we have ourselves conducted the analysis of the selected adaptations. Our own analysis, therefore, will focus mainly on the more overarching thematic tendencies of the adaptations, rather than be a perhaps more traditional film or mise-en-scène analysis.

Page 12 of 40

The choice of works, thematic decisions and selection of theory have led up to the following problem formulation:

PROBLEM FORMULATION Through a thematic analysis of the major antagonist to Sherlock Holmes, James Moriarty, this project seeks to investigate how the original Sir Arthur Conan Doyle character is portrayed as villain in the motion picture Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) and the BBC television series Sherlock (2010-2017).

Page 13 of 40

CINEMA AND ADAPTATION

FROM PAGE TO SCREEN The medium of film, since its inception more than a century ago, was then and remains still one of mankind’s newest inventions in the pursuit of creating art. For many centuries more, other art forms such as writing, painting, music and architecture reigned supreme as man’s premiere expressions of the artistic. Perhaps for this reason, film was for a long while considered by many a lower form of art, lacking the undeniable sophistication and artistic acknowledgement of Tolstoy’s War and Peace, Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, Da Vinci’s The Last Supper, Michelangelo’s David or fresco Creation of Adam in the Sistine Chapel, Beethoven’s 9th symphony or the Cologne Cathedral in Germany to name a few. Granted, few (if any) films compare to these milestones of artistic expression and mastery, however, the recognition of cinema as proper art, at times rivaling even the best literary or otherwise “traditional” arts, has in recent decades penetrated both artistic and scholarly sensibility.

In the cross-section of “traditional art” and film, we find the field of adaptation. Adapting literature into the medium of film is one of the most common practices within the world of cinema, which begs the question: when a literary work is translated into another medium, is some of the original not inevitably lost? Can it even still be considered related to the original? Or more aptly, how does one evaluate the authenticity of a text when the form is altered? Such questions are dealt with head-on in André Bazin’s text “Adaptation, or Cinema as Digest”, first published in French in Esprite in 1948. Bazin is perhaps one of the first to deal with this theoretical questioning concerning adaptation, and is considered an highly influential figure in the film theory development by many, as noted earlier (Area of Investigation). The notion that a novel is a uniquely and finely calibrated system, which, if tampered with, automatically loses its “soul”, so to speak, is simply untrue, according to Bazin (Bazin 1948/1997, p. 19). The history of cinema has already provided countless examples, Bazin argues, that illustrate how the changing of the form does not necessarily corrupt the inherent authenticity of original, but this authenticity can indeed be carried over to another medium (Bazin 1948/1997, p. 20). Stated simply, there is not necessarily something lost in translating a novel (or, indeed, any other form of text) into another medium, such as cinema. When Jean Delannoy directed the film La Symphonie pastorale (1949), adapted from André Gide’s book (1919) of the same name, it is inescapably true that there was no way for Delannoy to adapt Gide’s passé simple, a tense notation used only in written French. However, as Bazin

Page 14 of 40 exemplifies, Michèle Morgan, who plays the blind Gertrude in the film, communicate with her beautiful eyes the character’s innermost thoughts, with the omnipresent motif of the serene snow; all acceptable substitutes for Gide’s passé simple (ibid.). As the example illustrates, successful adaptation simply requires (not to be confused with something easily achieved) for the filmmaker to have enough visual imagination to create cinematic equivalences of the style of the original, and subsequently for the audiences to discover them (ibid.).

“‘Form’ is at most a sign, a visible manifestation, of style, which is absolutely inseparable from the narrative content, of which it is, in a manner of speaking according Sartre's use of the word, the metaphysics” (Bazin 1948/1997, p. 20).

Faithfulness in form, whether literary or otherwise, is therefore of less significance; what really matters is the equivalences in meaning - through this, it is possible to determine the faithfulness to the spirit of the original work. Now, in our own work with the Conan Doyle universe, the identification of “the spirit” of the original characters and narrative poses a challenge, since the antagonist of Moriarty, the main focus of our study, only feature prominently in two of the fifty- six short stories and four novels revolving around the Sherlock Holmes Adventures (although he arguably appears indirectly in more). This is in itself a striking fact, considering the fame and notoriety this antagonist to Holmes has seen following its modern renditions, despite only appearing in about 3% of the total body of original texts. It is afterall in the characters and their environment that the spirit of the text is to be found, why we must take extra care to uncover the characteristics of Moriarty in the original. The style of the original is in the service of the narrative; “[...] it is a reflection of it, so to speak, the body but not the soul. And it is not impossible for the artistic soul to manifest itself through another incarnation” as Bazin puts it (Bazin 1948/1997, p. 23). The challenge for the student of film, then, becomes to illuminate convincingly whether or not an adaptation has betrayed the spirit of the original work or not; within a spectrum, to what extend has the adaptation remained true to the original? Are any digressions upon the original minor or major, and do they take away from the overall impression? Questions such as these points back to the basic notion as put forward by Bazin; does the spirit of the original endure in the adaptation? Through his writing and as founder of the influential auteur theory3, André Bazin arguably laid the groundwork for our contemporary theoretical discussions about cinema and adaptation more than half a century ago.

3 The idea that, since film is an art form, the director of a movie must be perceived as the chief creator of its unique cinematic style (Cardullo 2017, p. xv).

Page 15 of 40

ADAPTATION AND TRANSLATION The discussion about adaptations and the validity of a notion such as “equivalences in meaning” has been ongoing continuously ever since Bazin put the notion forth. Many have since then joined in the discussion, and in recent years, the cross-field inclusion of several prominent translation theorists have reinvigorated the debate and brought new theoretical aspects to the table. As literary theorist Linda Hutcheon remarks in her book A Theory of Adaptation, the field of adaptation studies has grown immensely (Hutcheon 2012, p. xxvi). The notion of “fidelity”, as was for a long while the standard measure of the success of an adaptation, no longer holds the sort of authority it once did. Fidelity is understood as when adaptations were being judged in terms of quality by how close or far they were from the “original” or “source” text. If fidelity is invoked at all in today’s adaptation studies, it is usually in the context of fan-culture loyalty rather than as a quality of adaptive strategies (ibid.). There has been a longstanding tradition to consider adaptations of literary texts of lesser value in relation to the original - inferior reproductions, with the original literature always having axiomatic superiority over any adaptation of it because of its seniority as an art form (Hutcheon 2012, p. 4). Such a notion has in recent years become outdated and other theoretical approaches, which often echo the basic tenets of Bazin, and in any case have expanded the theoretical vocabulary in the field of adaptation studies. Hutcheon’s own replacement for fidelity as theoretical framework of adaptation is defined from three distinct but interrelated perspectives; first as a formal entity or product, second, as a process of creation, and third, as seen from the perspective of its process of reception (Hutcheon 2012, p. 8). In the first, the adaptation is an announced and extensive transposition of a particular work or works. This "transcoding" can involve a shift of medium, genre or a change of frame and therefore context: telling the same story from a completely different point of view, for instance, can create manifestly different interpretation. Transposition can also mean a shift in ontology from the real to the fictional, from historical account to fictionalized, or in the case of the Sherlock TV- series, a shift from Victorian to modern London (Hutcheon 2012, p. 7). In the second perspective, the act of adaptation always involves both (re-)interpretation and then (re-)creation; this has been called both appropriation and salvaging. African film adaptations of traditional oral legends are an example of this perspective; a way of preserving a rich heritage in an aural and visual mode (Hutcheon 2012, p. 8). And finally the third, where adaptation is a form of intertextuality: we experience adaptations as palimpsests through our memory of other works that resonate through repetition with variation (ibid.). Films adapted from comic books is an

Page 16 of 40 example of this third perspective, where the film will be experienced differently by those who have read the comic book from which the film is adapted as opposed to those who have not.

“In short, adaptation can be described as the following:

● An acknowledged transposition of a recognizable other work of works. ● A creative and an interpretive act of appropriation/salvaging. ● An extended intertextual engagement with the adapted work” (ibid.).

An adaptation is its own palimpsest thing, a work that is second without being secondary (ibid.). In this sense, adaptation is much like translation, hence the great theoretical fervor ignited with the introduction of translation theory within adaptation studies. Just like there is no such thing as a literal translation, nor can there ever be a literal adaptation. Transposition into another medium, or even moving within the same one, always means change or "reformatting" - resulting in both loss and in gain (Hutcheon 2012, p. 16). Recent translation theory argues that translation involves a transaction between texts and between languages and this is an act of both intercultural and intertemporal communication - this sensibility within translation theory comes close to defining adaptation as well (ibid.). In many cases, because adaptations are to a different medium, they are re-meditations, that is, specifically translations in the form of intersemiotic transpositions from one sign system (eg. the written word) to another (eg. cinema) (ibid.). "This is a translation but in a very specific sense: as transmutation or transcoding, that is, as necessarily a recoding into a new set of conventions as well as signs" (ibid.). When reading a literary text, the audience's engagement with the narrative begins in the realm of imagination, which is simultaneously controlled by the selected, directing words of the text and liberated. In other words, this engagement is unconstrained by the limits of the visual or aural. This is sort of engagement Hutcheon calls the telling mode (Hutcheon 2012, p. 23). In the contrasting showing mode, however, referring to film and stage adaptations, we are caught in an unrelenting, forward driving story. We have moved from the imagination to the realm of direct perception - with a mix of both detail and broad focus. The showing mode (or performance mode) demonstrates that language is not the only way to express meaning or to relate stories. Visual representations are rich in complex associations, while music, for instance, offers aural "equivalents" for characters' emotions and, in turn, stimulate affective responses in the audience (ibid.). “In the move from telling to showing, a performance adaptation must dramatize: description, narration, and represented thoughts must be transcoded into speech, actions, sounds, and visual images” (Hutcheon 2006, p. 39). A novel can contain very large portions of

Page 17 of 40 information, which translated to the cinematic form, can be shown very rapidly through actions, images and gestures (ibid.). The lengths to which novels go to describe the appearances of a person, for instance, are relayed to the audience immediately through the audio/visual form.

Hutcheon is but one of several who have tried to tackle the notions and merits of adaptation with the help of translation theory. In the pursuit of a more rigorous critical methodology in adaptation studies, translation theorist Lawrence Venuti employs his own field of translation directly to advance thinking on the subject of adaptation in his essay “Adaptation, Translation, Critique” for Journal of Visual Culture (2007). While also refuting the notion that adaptations should somehow be second-order creations in comparison to the original, Venuti states that adaptation studies have lacked a clear methodology that enables the examination of adaptations as cultural objects in their own right (Venuti 2007, p. 25). Romantic notions of original, self-expressed authorship of literary text has marginalized adaptations, Venuti argues, which in turn has caused film adaptations to be evaluated on the basis of its adequacy to the literary text, whereby it tends to be judged as an unfaithful or distorted communication of the author’s expressive intention (Venuti 2007, p. 26). The choice of translation theory as a source of concepts for adaptation studies is by no means arbitrary, since a translation of a text from one language to another, like adaptation, enacts an interpretation:

“The structural differences between languages, even between languages that bear significant lexical and syntactical resemblances stemming from shared etymologies or a history of mutual borrowing, require the translator variously to dismantle, rearrange, and finally displace the chain of signifiers that make up the source text” (Venuti 2007, p. 29).

A film adaptation similarly enacts an interpretation by detaching its prior materials from their contexts. A film adaptation, however, due to the different nature of the cinematic medium, may differ much more widely from its prior materials, submitting them to various kinds of manipulation and revision (ibid.). In contrast to contemporary translation practices, an adaptation is likely to decontextualize its prior materials in a much more extensive and complex way, not only because of the change in medium, but also because of the creative license filmmakers often allow themselves to take (Venuti 2007, p. 30). Portions of the original text might be altered or removed entirely because the filmmaker has chosen not to incorporate them in the film or at least not in the same form; thus, everything from subplots and plot twists, scenes and dialogue, characters and descriptions of settings, images from visual art and

Page 18 of 40 historical figures and events are subject to change in an adaptation (ibid.). A film adaptation is as much a recontextualization as it is a decontextualization, two processes which occur simultaneously, only with film adaptation, as opposed to translation, the process is done much more extensively and in a more complex way because of the shift to a different, multidimensional medium with different traditions, practices and conditions of production (ibid.). An adaptation can be further inflected by distinct styles of acting, directing and studio production; by the circumstances of a particular actor's, director's or screenwriter's career; by economic or by political factors; or by the hierarchy of values, beliefs and representations in the cultural situation where the adaptation is being produced (ibid.). At any rate, the shear multidimensionality of the cinematic medium is so powerful that is more than capable of competing against and forever complicating the viewer's experiences of the adapted material (ibid.).

In identifying the various recontextualizations and decontextualizations, Venuti provides the category of interpretants as his theoretical contribution to the analysis of adaptation. The notion of interpretants originates from his own field of translation theory, but forms an essential category for studying adaptation, the implicit ‘third term’ in the competitive discourses of fidelity and intertextuality (Venuti 2007, p. 31). Interpretants guide the process of recontextualizations and decontextualizations, and by extension, enable identification of this process in the study of adaptations more precisely. The category of interpretants can be either formal or thematic:

“Formal interpretants may include a relation of equivalence, such as a structural correspondence maintained between the adapted materials and the film [...] a particular style, such as a distinctive set of formal features that characterize the work of a director or studio, or a concept of genre that necessitates a manipulation or revision of the adapted materials [...] Thematic interpretants are codes, values, ideologies. They may include an interpretation of the adapted materials that has been formulated elsewhere, a morality or cultural taste shared by the filmmakers and used to appeal to a particular audience, or a political position that reflects the interests of a specific social group.” (Venuti 2007, p. 33).

The shifts between an adaptation and its prior material can therefore be useful indicators of a filmmakers chosen approach to equivalences, and in the study of adaptations, the identification

Page 19 of 40 of interpretants allow the exposure of significant formal and thematic features of the material, both those that have been included, those who have been omitted and those who have been replaced (Venuti 2007, p. 33). Venuti thus suggests we consider the adaptation’s relation to the source text as hermeneutic, and in doing so, the category of interpretants can assume a crucial importance in the analysis of both translations and, indeed, adaptations (Venuti 2007, p. 41).

Page 20 of 40

ANALYSIS

A GAME OF SHADOWS - THE ANTAGONIST IN MOTION Some of the greatest early examples of villainess characters are found in the plays of William Shakespeare; for instance Iago in Othello, Richard III, or Macbeth. Already with Shakespeare and other Elizabethan writing did the villain embody all the darker qualities of humanity’s persona; envy, misanthropy, pride, arrogance, and especially ambition, which unchecked can spiral into great misfortune. Revenge might be the driving force for the protagonist's actions in of Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince for example, but the motif of the pitfalls of unwavering ambition comes into play later in the story (Bowser 2016, p. 157). After all, the term “Machiavellianism” has come to suggest duplicity and cunning in statecraft as well as other matters, while modern psychology has come to use the term as one part of the dark triad of personality traits, characterizing it as interpersonal strategies that advocate self-interest, deception and manipulation of others, all in the pursuit of personal gain (Jakobwitz 2006, p. 332). In the play Tragedy of Tiberius (circa 1607, author unknown), we have a combination of the theme of dealing with the rise of an ambitious villain coupled with treating of the atrocities of a tyrant and the final revenge taken on him by the hero (Bowser 2016, p. 158). This school of tragedy, which concerned itself chiefly with the depiction of villainy and horrors, shocking scenes of blood and violence, and an increased emphasis on intrigue, held stage in the early 1600s with great attendance (Bowser 2016, p. 154). Already then did great villains shock and entertain audiences, and it is perhaps stories such as these that set in motion what would become our notion of ‘antagonist’ generations hence. When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle invented Professor James Moriarty, he continued an old tradition of creating exciting and terrifying villains, evolving the notion of antagonist even further. Conan Doyle was naturally also aware of another villainess character, first published only one year before his first Sherlock Holmes story came out, namely, The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1886) by Robert Louis Stevenson. Here, too, are the dark features of human (and animalistic) instinct realized in a villainess character, with the added twist of the protagonist and antagonist residing within the same character. Other inspirations for the character of Moriarty might have been such villainess characters as Count Dracula or Jack the Ripper, who also first appeared in the public imagination in Conan Doyle’s own time.

How, then, has the modern adaptations of this iconic villain evolved this criminal mastermind further still? These modern renditions offer an excellent example of how cultural changes influences the characterization of even characters as icon as those of Conan Doyle,

Page 21 of 40 from a somewhat obscure and brooding character to a rather handsome and charismatic personage (Powers 2016, p. 111). As noted earlier, Moriarty only appears directly in two of Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, namely in The Adventure of the Final Problem and in The Valley of Fear. In the former, Holmes gives his analysis of Moriarty’s character, as cited earlier;

“He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organizer of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city. He is a genius, a philosopher, an abstract thinker. He has a brain of the finest order. He sits motionless, like a spider in the centre of its web, but that web has a thousand radiations, and he knows well every quiver of each of them” (Doyle 1893/1992, p. 437).

Through the character of James Moriarty, Conan Doyle addresses a great fear prevalent in his own time, around the 1890’s - the fear of the criminal class. In Conan Doyle’s own time, citizens took for granted that a criminal could be identified as such simply by how he or she looked (Powers 2016, p. 112). Conan Doyle uses this fear and also twists it, as when Holmes employs the youngest of the criminal class, whom he calls the Irregulars. In contrast, the adult criminal class, of which Moriarty is the center, is much more dangerous. The character of Moriarty illustrates the ultimate outcome, the final destination of the descent into criminality (ibid.). Even Moriarty’s physical appearance echoes his depravity, as he is described by Holmes when he first meets the professor;

“He is extremely tall and thin, his forehead domes out in a white curve, and his two eyes are deeply sunken in his head. He is clean shaven, pale, and ascetic- looking, retaining something of the professor in his features. His shoulders are rounded from much study, and his face protrudes forward, and is forever slowly oscillating from side to side in a curiously reptilian fashion” (Doyle 1893/1992, p. 438).

This description, coupled with Sidney Paget’s illustration (cf. The Introduction), makes a startling impression of a man, whose very figure reveals his inner nature; a cold-blooded nature, as the description of “reptilian” underlines. Whereas Holmes is described as similarly tall and slender, with having hawk-like features (In “”, the first Sherlock Holmes story), Moriarty is portrayed as being almost ghoulish, like a spider or reptile.

Page 22 of 40

When we look at the characters in modern adaptations, we find the contrasts between the protagonist and antagonist is made even clearer in their appearances and in the case of the TV-series, also in the their temperaments. Here we undercover an interesting shift in thematic interpretants, which functions to create a greater contrast between hero and villain. Whereas the Guy Ritchie version marks this contrast in both the appearances of the characters and in their emotional eccentricity or lack thereof, the TV-series’ portrayal of hero and villain is contrasted solely in their emotional temperaments (more on this in “Homoerocity and emotions in BBC’s Sherlock”).

In Guy Ritchie’s A Game of Shadows, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and James Moriarty (Jarred Harris) come across strikingly different throughout the movie, as the two pictures below serve to exemplify. Harris’ Moriarty holds himself as the perfect Victorian gentleman with well-combed hair and beard, a beautiful vest, a perfectly tied tie and a completely white shirt. Downey Jr.’s Holmes seems to be the exact opposite, perfectly illustrating the stark contrast between the two characters. During the entirety of the movie Holmes is shown with ill-tended hair, bristles, a myriad of scars and bruises from fistfights and a variety of less than flattering outfits. In the specific picture below, he is seen with an unbuttoned shirt that appears to have been white once but has been discolored - probably due to lack of washing. As opposed to Conan Doyle’s repulsive criminal outsider, Ritchie’s Moriarty is a shining example of all that is “right” with the upper class world. Of course, the audience knows Moriarty is working on the destruction of this ideal, however, his flawless representation of our upwardly mobile desires is entrancing (Powers 2016, p. 114). It is perhaps even more beguiling to witness Moriarty as this attractive, confident pillar of the community representing the ultimate societal evil (ibid.).

Page 23 of 40

Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes and Jared Harris as James Moriarty - “A Game of Shadows”.

This contrast is echoed subtly in Holmes’ and Moriarty’s personal quarters; in Holmes’ place of residence, we see his “spider's-web” as he calls it, a room decorated in all manner of newspaper clippings, maps and pictures, all intertwined with red string, which interconnect in many different ways, all moving towards the center of the pastiche, into a picture of Moriarty. A massive mind-map, made real, exemplifying Holmes’ sporadic mentality. Moriarty, on the other hand, in his impressive office in the university where Holmes is invited to meet him, we find a similar “mind-map” on the professor's blackboard, only here it is populated by an astonishing amount of impressive mathematical equations, which in turn reflect his cool and calculated demeanor (see next page).

Page 24 of 40

Holmes’ “mind-map” on top, Moriarty’s blackboard on the bottom - “A Game of Shadows”.

Holmes’ dresses in such a bohemian style that at one point in the film, he is mistaken for a street beggar, while in another, he blends in perfectly with a band of gypsies (Powers 2016, p. 114). The stark contrast of the hero and the villain’s appearances even becomes a plot point, as becomes apparent during the cause of the film. It is through Holmes’ use of disguises and costumes, which allows him to discover and ultimately recover Moriarty’s encoded notebook, in which he keeps records of all his financial movements - the incriminating evidence of his evil schemes. Not only in appearance, but also in personality, Moriarty seems on the surface to be a perfect image of the Victorian gentleman. In the essay “The Watson Effect” April Toadvine tries to define what made a gentlemen during the Victorian era: “(...) the expectations for moral behaviour for both men and women revolved around duty to family, duty to those less

Page 25 of 40 fortunate, and respectability, usually demonstrated by scrupulous personal integrity and cleanliness.” (Toadvine 2012, p. 56). Holmes is portrayed much more as the eccentric genius in Ritchie’s film, while Moriarty is the more composed and gentlemanly intellectual. Ritchie’s Moriarty is not only attractive and intelligent; he is also a keen and astute businessman, a quality which is in itself alluring (Powers 2016, p. 115). In Ritchie’s film, Moriarty’s sole goal is to make money, not to be intellectually superior or to prove a point; he seeks to begin a world war so he can make an enormous profit from the arms and medicinal manufacture, which he by criminal means have created a monopoly on for himself: “All I want to do is own the bullets and the bandages” (Ritchie 2011, 01:50:35). Like some real world businessmen, who appeared in the US media at the time of the film’s release (like Bernard L. Madoff for instance) Moriarty cares little for the human consequences of his predatory business schemes (Powers 2016, p. 115). Of course, Moriarty does not consider himself predatory (at least not on the surface), in fact, war on an industrial scale is inevitable, as Moriarty explains to Holmes: “You see, hidden within the unconscious there is an insatiable desire for conflict. So, you're not fighting me so much as you are the human condition [...] They’ll do it themselves within a few years. All I have to do is wait” (Ritchie 2011, 01:50:17). The collateral damage done by a world war, which viewers know does indeed come a few years after the imagined timeline of the film, is of no concern for Moriarty; the human suffering, the displacement of thousands, the destruction of countries and economies, as the viewer knows will be the consequences of the First World War, is merely incidental to Moriarty - he simple wants to profit from the violence. In this he does not see himself as a monster, but rather a successful businessman (Powers 2016, p. 115). With the economic collapse and following recession only a couple of years prior to the release of the film, it is perhaps not completely coincidental that Moriarty in this adaptation is portrayed as the quintessential predatory businessman, for whom nothing but profit matters. The financial crisis exposed how a few, wealthy men in effect had successfully exploited entire economies to their advantage (although few were ever punished), so the portrayal of Moriarty as the dispassionate businessman seeking profit at the expense of all but self surely resonates with an audience experiencing financial inequality. As thematic interpretant, the shift from classical power-hungry, revengeful antagonist, Ritchie has chosen instead to let monetary matters be the dominant motivation for the villain - perhaps rather fitting considering the intended audience, as mentioned.

Page 26 of 40

HOMOEROCITY AND EMOTIONS IN BBC’S SHERLOCK The relationship between Sherlock Holmes and John Watson is essential to any Sherlock Holmes adaptation. In contemporary adaptations both audiences, fans, critics, the actors themselves and academics have speculated in the two character’s “bromantic” relationship and the possible underlying homoerotic tendencies (Thomas 2012, p. 43). Even though the sexualization of Doyle’s famous detective started almost immediately after the first stories were published in The Strand Magazine, the sexualixation and romantization of the universe has only increased since then and recently hit its temporary peak with the BBC series and the Guy Ritchie film (Graham & Garlen 2012, p. 31). The sexualization and latent homosexuality is especially prevalent in the BBC series, not only between Sherlock and John but perhaps even more so in the character of Jim. As Carlen Lavigne describes it in the essay “Subtext and Sexuality in BBC’s Sherlock”: “(...) his [Sherlock] rivalry with Moriarty also invites - indeed, nearly demands - queer readings.” (Lavigne 2012, p. 26). Every encounter between the two geniuses is laced with flirtation, especially Jim engages in flirtatious comments at every turn. Indeed the very first time Sherlock encounters the criminal mastermind Jim is pretending to be Molly Hooper’s - obviously homosexual - new boyfriend, something Sherlock notices immediately. Jim’s flirtatious nature is obvious from the first time the appears on screen and the character establishes this trait at the poolside meeting - the first time Jim encounters Sherlock as himself:

“Sherlock: Consulting Criminal. Brilliant isn’t it?

Jim: Isn’t it? No one ever gets to me. And no one ever will.

[Sherlock clocks gun]

Sherlock: I did.

Jim: You’ve come the closest. Now you’re in my way.

Sherlock: Thank you.

Jim: Didn’t mean it as a compliment.

Sherlock: Yes, you did.

Jim: Yeah, okay, I did. But the flirting’s over, Sherlock.

Jim (Sing-Song): Daddy’s had enough now.”

Page 27 of 40

(BBC, The Great Game 2010, 01:23.00-01:23:30)

“The Game” - in Jim’s own words - the two have been playing throughout The Great Game has been like a flirt to Jim. The flirt in itself could be seen as an intellectual flirt in which Jim has challenged Sherlock, however the conversation possesses strong sexual undertones, especially with Jim referring to himself as “Daddy”. This reference is unlikely to be meant in a fatherly manner. Firstly, Sherlock and Jim both appear to be around the same age - in their early 30’s - and thusly such a comment would be rather illogical, something not normally associated with Jim or the character of Moriarty in general. Moreover the characters are evidently each other's intellectual equals and at this point in the story at least Jim does not seem to claim intellectual superiority over Sherlock. Thusly the comment seems to be sexual in nature, as daddy is also a word that might be used in a relationship, especially in a young couple. Curiously enough Sherlock is not entirely dismissive of Jim’s flirtatious approaches. In the poolside encounter Jim asks Sherlock “Is that a British Army Browning L9A1 in your pocket, or are you just pleased to see me?” (BBC, The Great Game 2010, 01:22:30). Both cleverly and almost flirtatious Sherlock simply answers “both”. Despite the dismissal of homosexual tendencies from both the creators and the characters, both Jim and Sherlock possess the same sexual ambiguity, as Lavigne also points out. Despite the flirtatious attitude towards Sherlock Jim claims that he is not homosexual: “Although I have loved this, this little game of ours. Playing Jim from IT, playing gay. Did you like the little touch with the underwear?” (BBC, The Great Game 2010, 01:23:40). If one takes Jim’s words to be true then the gayness in his attitude was but a scheme to mask his true identity from Holmes. The flirtation continues throughout the show, however, making viewers question the validity of Jim’s statement. In fact Jim mentions sex or alludes to it in almost every scene he participates in. This is also the case when Jim visits Sherlock in his private quarters after the trial in :

“Jim: I can any door anywhere with a few tiny lines of computer code.(...). In a world of locked rooms, the man with the key is king. And honey, you should See. Me. In. A. Crown…

Sherlock: You were advertising all the way through the trial. You were showing the world what you can do.

Jim: And you were helping. Big client list. Rogue governments, intelligence communities. Terror cells. They all want me. Suddenly I’m Mr Sex.”

Page 28 of 40

(BBC, The Reichenbach Fall 2012, 00:24:15-00:25:30)

In the quote above Jim refers to Sherlock as honey, a rather loving nickname one might argue, just as he referred to himself as daddy by the poolside earlier in the series in The Great Game. The intimacy between Sherlock and Jim is only increased by the fact that they exclusively use each other’s first names - or nicknames as seen above. The infatuation Jim has with sex reaches its peak in the previous quote, when he directly states that he is indeed Mr Sex. Even when talking about business Jim mentions sex at every opportune moment.

Jim does not only possess sexual ambiguity but is also presented as an androgynous character throughout the series, a trait that only enhances the sexual ambiguity inherent in Andrew Scott’s rendition of the famous villain (Lavigne 2012, p. 26). The gracefulness and fluidity of Andrew Scott’s movement add a certain form of femininity to the character. Alongside with his rather feminine voice and tone and his tendency to almost sing during conversations create an overall picture of a gender fluid character. A perfect example is when Jim says “And honey, you should See. Me. In. A. Crown…”. (BBC, The Reichenbach Fall 2012, 00:24:20). With his head oscillating smoothly from side to side the line the line is said, almost sung, with soft and gentle pronunciation. Besides having female characteristics himself, Jim uses a number of innocent people to speak for him in The Great Game. With two women and a young boy as mouthpieces his usage of “agents” to speak his cause has a distinctive feminine feel to it. Moffat and Gatiss utilize the theme of gender fluidity and genderbending throughout the series, as when Sherlock analyzes John’s phone in A Study in Pink. It was formerly owned by John’s presumed brother Harry, but it turns out that Harry is short for Harriet, and it is John’s sister and not brother. Jim is not only genderfluid but he exhibits the same fluidity with his behavior and roles. Through the series he is portrayed as a businessman with his job of “consulting criminal”, an actor, a storyteller, a cab driver to name a few. The difficulty of defining Jim is what makes him both so dangerous and interesting to the audience (Powers 2016, p. 117). The audience and the characters never know what to expect from the master criminal, ensuring that Jim feels fresh throughout the series. Something Jim also mentions himself during the poolside meeting: “Sorry, boys. I’m so changeable! It is a weakness with me, but to be fair to myself, it is my only weakness.” (BBC, The Great Game 2010, 01:28:15).

The sexual ambiguity of both Sherlock and Jim can not only be found through their actions but also indeed in their appearances, looks and style, which are strikingly similar in the

Page 29 of 40

BBC series, as illustrated in the exemplary pictures below. Even the postures of Sherlock and Jim bear a close resemblance. As described earlier the exact opposite can be said to hold true in A Game of Shadows.

As seen in the pictures the likeness of the two are striking to say the least. Both characters have hair that is obviously well tended to. Especially with Jim it is clear that the hair is hold in place with wax and comb. Both are newly-shaven at most times throughout the show (apart from the times when Sherlock experiences his periods of “down-time”, in which he does nothing, talks to no one and cares about nothing), and both Sherlock and Jim appears in high- class suits throughout the series (except during Sherlock aforementioned “down-times” and when Jim pretends to be Molly Hooper’s new boyfriend from IT). Paying close attention to the face of Jim it is quite noticeable that the eyebrows seem to be plucked to perfection, something normally associated with female beauty - again adding to Jim’s androgyneity. If one observes only the appearances of the two characters they both could be seen as icons of fashion and style. When John grabs Jim by the poolside and subsequently releases him Jim adjusts his suit and exclaims: “Westwood” (BBC, The Great Game 2010, 00:24:00). A high-end designer product it clearly shows Jim’s attention and appreciation of fashion and style (Vivienne Westwood 2017). The attractiveness of Sherlock and Jim compliment Moffat and Gatiss’ vision of a younger Sherlock Holmes in contemporary London. Another subtle but very effective tool the creators have used to reinforce the idea of younger character is the simply change that

Page 30 of 40

Moriarty is no longer called James. He says himself that his name is Jim Moriarty. Jim is arguably just a nickname, but it serves to illustrate how Moffat and Gatiss have utilized every opportunity to create younger, more hip characters. Although they are VIctorian characters they both completely embrace the 21st century (Taylor 2012, p. 138). Moffat and Gatiss’ choice of the apparent ambiguous sexual nature of the characters could be seen as an attempt to please the fan-fiction creators and -lovers around the world. The homosexual bond between both Sherlock/John and Sherlock/Jim are widely appreciated in the fan-fiction community - and indeed a large portion of the overall fan-fiction is concerned with this topic. The sexualisation of the entire Sherlock Holmes universe could also be seen as part of a more general development entertainment, culture and society. Sex is undoubtedly an important part of 21st century societies, so it should come as no surprise that is should be mirrored in entertainment as film and TV.

In terms of personality Sherlock and Jim are remarkably similar for the most part. Both Sherlock and John could be considered sociopaths and even borderline psychopaths in the BBC series. After killing the cabbie in A Study in Pink, neither John nor Sherlock reacts in ways considered normal: “John’s lack of remorse after killing the cabbie, (...), is a sociopathic reaction to the situation, and his and Sherlock’s reactions to this death show that both of them fit the label of sociopath.” (Toadvine 2012, p. 67). The description of sociopath certainly fits the antagonist Jim, who is arguably even more perverted and insane than the two protagonists, which would make sense from a storytelling point of view. Extreme and sociopathic as the two main protagonists are, the main antagonist of the series first 3 seasons need to be it even more so in order to create a meaningful contrast in which one can root for the protagonists. Their incredible intellect, their disregard for human life, their sexual ambiguity, their appearance, clothes, hand gestures - the list of similarities between Sherlock and Jim goes on and on. As Gatiss explains: “It’s a cliché to to say they’re two sides of the same coin but that’s clearly true.” (Powers 2016, p. 118). Both characters also acknowledge their similarities at more than one occasion. They know that they are the same; Sherlock is just “boring” in Jim’s words. The likeness of the two characters - and especially their socio-/psychopathy - is a central theme throughout the show. As sergeant Donovan tells John during their first meeting in A Study in Pink:

Page 31 of 40

Sgt. Donovan: You know why he’s here? He’s not paid or anything. He likes it. He gets off on it. The weirder the crime, the more he gets off. And you know what? One day just showing up won’t be enough. One day we’ll be standing round a body and Sherlock Holmes will be the one that put it there.

John: Why would he do that?

Sgt. Donovan: Because he’s a psychopath. Psychopaths get bored.

(BBC, A Study in Pink 2010, 00:32:00-00:32:30)

Sherlock of course claims more than once that he is not a psychopath but a high-functioning sociopath, but the lines are blurred to say the least. Inspecting the pictures below the appearance and facial expressions of both Sherlock and Jim have a distinct menacing feel. One cannot help but feeling a little uneasy when looking at them. Without the knowledge of Sherlock being the protagonist one could easily mistake him for being a villain. The ambiguity fits the detective perfectly as he is in many ways a modern anti-hero. The psychopathy of Jim is even more apparent in the selected picture. A smirky grin and dark eyes with indistinguishable pupils and half his face covered in darkness he truly looks like a psychopath with no regard for human life.

However, for all their similarities the two characters are fundamentally different in one particular aspect. Sherlock’s machine-like calmness is mirrored in the flamboyant and arguably emotionally unstable Jim. Sherlock keeps his cool at (almost) all times, letting the left side of the brain control, where Jim exhibits outbursts of both rage and excitement. These outbursts are both sudden and intense shocking the audience every time. What particularly seems to enrage Jim are situations when Sherlock appears intellectually inferior. The outbursts appear to

Page 32 of 40 be a reaction of disappointment at Sherlock’s apparent lack of insight and reasoning ability. Thought to have found his intellectual equal in the world, Jim is disappointed in finding that that might not be the case, and the he has to go back to deal with “(...) ordinary people.” (BBC, The Great Game 2010, 01:10:10).

The psychopath in Jim is much more outspoken and obvious than his counterpart in A Game Of Shadows. And Jim has no problem acknowledging the fact that he is a psychopath:

“Sherlock: You’re insane.

Jim: You’re just getting that now?”

(BBC, The Reichenbach Fall 2012, 01:14:15)

The choice of letting Jim’s psychopath be on the forefront of his identity was a deliberate choice by the creators of the BBC show, as they decided the have a “genuinely mad, frightening, unpredictable psycho-Moriarty.” (Powers 2016, p. 117).

As a testimony to Jim’s insanity his idea of sex and sexiness is closely linked with that of death, an example of the modern rendition of “la petite mort”4. Andrew Scott’s version of the famous villain is extremely charismatic and reflects Jim’s eccentric nature. He is both extremely seductive and at the same time extremely terrifying (Powers 2016, p. 117). His entire personality thusly reflects his obsession with sex, death and the combination of the two.

“Jim: (...) Your only three friends in the world will die ... unless ...

Sherlock: ... unless I kill myself – complete your story.

Jim: You’ve gotta admit that’s sexier.

Sherlock: And I die in disgrace.

Jim: Of course. That’s the point of this.”

(BBC, The Reichenbach Fall 2012, 01:14:45)

The ultimate (sexual) satisfaction Jim can obtain is to defeat Sherlock and whether that means his own or Sherlock’s death is irrelevant. Jim’s approval of Sherlock picking a high and public place to jump from suggests a form of voyeuristic pleasure to Jim’s sexuality, although that can

4 the sensation of orgasm as likened to death.

Page 33 of 40 only be said to be speculative at the most. After Jim’s suicide Sherlock acknowledges the fact that Jim had a death wish more prominent than he had ever imagined (, Season 3). As Jim’s ultimate wish is to create ravage and break Sherlock he has no problem dying if that means accomplishing that goal, as Euros explains in The Final Problem: “Sweet Jim. He was never very interested in being alive. Especially if he could make more trouble being dead.”(BBC, The Final Problem 2017, 01:13:00).

Up until season 4 in the BBC series Jim is portrayed as the main antagonist despite him blowing out his own brains in the final episode of season 2: The Reichenbach Fall. However, during the last episode of season 4, it is revealed that Moriarty was but a pawn in Sherlock’s younger sister Euros’ plans. For this reason the question of Jim’s importance in the BBC series is rather ambivalent. Even though Jim is portrayed as the main antagonist he is not referred to as the “Napoleon of crime”. In fact the famous quote is used by Sherlock to describe ’s brilliant criminal Charles Augustus Magnussen in : “He is the Napoleon of blackmail.” (BBC, His Last Vow 2014, 00:22:06). However, in the 2016 special The Abominable Bride Jim says by the Reichenbach Falls that “You know what I am. I’m Moriarty. The Napoleon of crime.” (BBC, The Abominable Bride 2016, 01:21:00). This entire episode is revealed to be a figment of Sherlock’s imagination. However the conversation between him and Jim suggests that Jim is indeed the famous detective’s greatest enemy.

As briefly touched upon earlier the ultimate goal of Jim is destroy Sherlock at any cost; a stark contrast to his counterpart in A Game of Shadows. Neither money nor power drive Jim and his quest towards Sherlock’s destruction seems more like a personal vendetta to prove he is the smartest person in the world than a cleverly crafted master plan to conquer, or at least own, the world. This is again reflected in the intimacy the two characters share in the series. Sherlock perceives this character trait from the moment he meets Jim, but never fully understands it. Jim simply wants to play the game and solve the “final” problem and Sherlock’s mechanic and machine-like intellect and reasoning simply cannot comprehend this lack of logical motive from the antagonist:

“Sherlock: Why are you doing all this?

Jim: It must be so funny.

Sherlock: You don’t want money or power, not really.

[Jim carves apple]

Page 34 of 40

Sherlock: What is it all for?

Jim: I want to solve the problem. Our problem. The final problem.”

(BBC, The Reichenbach Fall 2012, 00:25:30-00:26:00)

To Jim the entire “game” - as he calls it - is reminiscent of a fairytale. And as he says: “Every fairytale needs a good old-fashioned villain.” (BBC, The Reichenbach Fall 2012, 00:22:00). This insistence on treating their deadly encounters as a game and a fairytale again points to Jim’s apparent lack of financial or political motives behind his actions and crimes. Moffat and Gatiss have clever used this lack of larger motives to enhance Jim’s psychopathy.

It has indeed not been the point of this section to try and prove that the characters are gay, bi- or heterosexual, but simply to showcase that it is a viable reading of the BBC series, and the latent homoerocity and the emotions of the characters are central elements of the evolution of the antagonist in Sherlock.

Page 35 of 40

CONCLUSION In Guy Ritchie's “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”, James Moriarty is portrayed in great contrast to the hero, Sherlock Holmes, both in his appearances, his surroundings and in his disposition; where Holmes seen in dirty clothes, unkempt and generally scruffy looking, Moriarty is always perfectly dressed, tidy and has the air of the perfect gentleman about him. This contrast is enhanced further in their emotional disposition, as Holmes is portrayed as the eccentric detective, who is awkward in social situations and inspires animosity towards himself even from his trusted friend Dr. Watson. Moriarty on the other hand is always calm and collected, cool and calculated, both in his words and in his actions. As opposed to the original Conan Doyle text, the modern rendition seems adamant in creating the strongest of contrasts between hero and villain, and in doing so, the film underlines a dynamic, which was also very much present in the original text; the dynamic of social classes. In Conan Doyle’s original stories, Moriarty as a villain functioned as representative of the criminal class, disguised as upper-class gentleman. The true horror in this dynamic being that the (rightly or wrongly) associated high values and ethics of upper-class people in Victorian London no longer held true within the narrative of Conan Doyle. In the spirit of this dynamic, the modern rendition A Game of Shadows comes close to set up a similar situation in its narrative; Sherlock Holmes employs the help of a gang of gypsies, disguises himself as a piccolo and is even mistaken for a beggar at one point - in other words, Holmes is presented as a common man, operating within the working class societal layer, while Moriarty is always the cultured, upper-class gentleman. In adapting such dynamics to a 21st century film, the aspect of economics is employed, which is surely much more relatable to a modern audience. Moriarty is a predatory businessman rather than an aristocratic totalitarian, which moves the notion of antagonist into a vocabulary easily understandable for an audience who is living in the aftermath of a major economic meltdown, caused by greedy businessmen operating behind the scenes. This modern Moriarty captures perhaps even more so than Conan Doyle’s original rendition the spirit of the Elizabethan villain, whose unwavering ambition in the end becomes his downfall.

In the BBC series Jim is largely defined as a character and an antagonist by his fluidity with gender, sexuality, role, personality and motives. With feminine character traits, such as his voice and movements, Jim is presented as an androgynous antagonist who utilizes his fluidity and apparent homoerocity to confuse both Sherlock and audiences throughout the show. As opposed to the original stories and A Game of Shadows Jim and Sherlock are remarkably similar in the BBC series. They dress similarly, they posses astounding intelligence and they are

Page 36 of 40 both sociopaths making their relationship in the BBC series incredibly intimate. What truly set them apart is Jim’s flamboyant and emotional character compared to Sherlock’s machine-like calmness. Jim’s personality allows the psychopath within to shine through in an almost Joker- like manner, which becomes especially clear during his various outbursts of rage or excitement. As a true psychopath Jim has no ultimate goal of power or money. His deepest desire is to defeat Sherlock intellectually, whatever the cost. Like any true monster Jim defies borders and limits. His fluidity and the inability to define and understand the antagonist makes Jim truly unpredictable and is a large part of what makes him so incredibly dangerous and fascinating. As an antagonist in motion Jim has evolved into a seductive psychopath in the BBC series.

Page 37 of 40

WORKS CITED: Bazin, André: “What is Cinema?”, University of California Press, 2004.

Bowers, Fredson Thayer: “Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy, 1587-1642”, Princeton Legacy Library. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016.

Colman, Felicity: “Film, Theory and Philosophy”, Taylor and Francis 2009.

Cardullo, R. J: André Bazin, the Critic as Thinker. American cinema from early Chaplin to the late 1950s. SensePublishers, 2017.

Doyle, Sir Arthur Conan: "The Adventure of the Final Problem" in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes. Wordsworth Classics, 1887/1992.

Doyle, Sir Arthur Conon: “The Valley of Fear” in The Complete Sherlock Holmes Long Stories. Murray, London. 1929.

Graham, Anissa M., and Jennifer C. Garlen: "Sex and the Single Sleuth". Sherlock Holmes for the 21st Century - Essays on New Adaptations. McFarland, 2012. Print.

Hutcheon, Linda & O'Flynn, Siobhan: “A Theory of Adaptation” Routledge, 2012.

Jakobwitz, Sharon & Egan, Vincent: "The 'dark triad' and normal personality traits" in Personality and Individual Differences. 40 (2): 331–39, 2006.

Jones, Paul: “Mark Gatiss on new villains and Sherlock’s series 3 return.” Radiotimes. 30. January 2013. Web. Last visited 17. May 2017. http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-01- 30/mark-gatiss-on-new-villains-and-sherlocks-series-3-return

Moffat, Steven, and Mark Gatiss: "A Study in Pink." Sherlock. BBC. 25. Jul.

2010. Television.

Moffat, Steven, and Mark Gatiss: "The Great Game." Sherlock. BBC. 8. Aug.

2010. Television.

Moffat, Steven, and Mark Gatiss: "." Sherlock. BBC. 1. Jan.

2012. Television.

Moffat, Steven, and Mark Gatiss: "The Reichenbach Fall." Sherlock. BBC. 15. Jan.

Page 38 of 40

2012. Television.

Moffat, Steven, and Mark Gatiss: "The Empty Hearse." Sherlock. BBC. 1. Jan.

2014. Television.

Moffat, Steven, and Mark Gatiss: "His Last Vow." Sherlock. BBC. 12. Jan.

2014. Television.

Moffat, Steven, and Mark Gatiss: "The Abominable Bride." Sherlock. BBC. 1. Jan.

2016. Television.

Moffat, Steven, and Mark Gatiss: "The Final Problem." Sherlock. BBC. 15. Jan.

2017. Television.

Paget, Sidney: “Illustration of James Moriarty” The Strand Magazine. 1893. https://www.google.dk/search?q=moriarty+conan+doyle&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0 ahUKEwjR8aywx_fTAhXC8ywKHf- GCfYQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=920#imgrc=TKk9W6x6xQYZjM:

Paget, Sidney: “The Death of Sherlock Holmes” The Strand Magazine, 1893. https://www.google.dk/search?q=reichenbach+falls&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahU KEwir3dHAmerTAhXhIJoKHUV- BlQQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=920#imgrc=w93tUnlQDnhYpM:

Powers, Heather: “The Evolution of James Moriarty. How Villains Mirror Social Anxieties” in “Who Is Sherlock?: Essays on Identity in Modern Holmes Adaptations”, edited by Lynette Porter, McFarland, 2016.

Ritchie, Guy: “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” Produced by Warner Bros. in association with Village Roadshow Pictures, Silver Pictures, Wigram Productions, Lin Pictures. Directed by Guy Ritchie, 2011.

Taylor, Rhonda Harris: "The Great Game" of Information: The BBC's Digital Native" in

Sherlock Holmes for the 21st Century - Essays on New Adaptations. McFarland, 2012.

Print.

Page 39 of 40

Toadvine, April: "The Watson Effect: Civilizing the Sociopath" in Sherlock Holmes for the 21st Century - Essays on New Adaptations. McFarland, 2012.

Thomas, Kayley: ""Bromance Is so Passé": Robert Downey, Jr.'s Queer Paratexts" in Sherlock Holmes for the 21st Century - Essays on New Adaptations. McFarland, 2012.

Venuti, Lawrence: “Adaptation, Translation, Critique” in Journal of Visual Culture. April 2007, 6, pp. 25-43. 2007

Vivienne Westwood: http://www.viviennewestwood.com/en-gb/shop/mens/clothing/suits. Last visited 19/5 2017.

Page 40 of 40