Sherlock Creator Steven Moffat on Show’s ‘Playful’ Visuals

One of the most inspired aspects of last Sunday’s excellent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes was the direction. It was modern, fun and perhaps most importantly, it supported the overall narrative.

In an interview with Den of Geek, co-creator Steven Moffat gave his opinion on the “playfulness” of director Paul McGuigan’s visuals, as well as the performance of Martin Freeman as Doctor Watson.

Does that inspire your choice of director, too? Because I thought Paul McGuigan did a brilliant job with A Study In Pink?
It’s beautiful. All credit to Sue Vertue, the wife. Who, after having seen Lucky Number Slevin and hearing that he was interested in doing television, suggested Paul.
I think he was an inspired choice. A brilliant, amazing director. I’ve worked with directors with a great visual eye before, but never one who was so driven by the plot. So, while he does fantastic pyrotechnic visual things, it’s all about the story. It’s not irrelevant to it, so I’m not saying ‘that’s a lovely picture, but you’ve given away the murderer, you can’t use it’.
I love working with Paul, he’s been absolutely brilliant.
He’s very savvy about working the screen in thirds, which you don’t see a lot of on television. Is that how you envisaged the look of Sherlockyourself?

I wouldn’t claim that I would envisage it as well as Paul McGuigan does, because he’s got an extraordinary eye. Best director I’ve ever worked with. It was that kind of thing – I suppose I’d be using examples like The Ipcress File, a sense of playfulness with the visuals. Thinking we can actually do fun stuff.
This show, we should always be clever, and it should be clever in the way it looks as well.
One thing that was very key was he was saying you should feel that there’s a Sherlock Holmes behind the camera as well. I thought that was a very astute thing to say.

Moffat also spoke about Martin Freeman‘s contribution as Sherlock’s right-hand man, Doctor Watson:

I want to ask about Watson, too. Because you’ve written him very economically. And when I’m used to seeing Watson, a lot of the time he’s doing explanatory work, and you’re seeing the story through his eyes. Yet, when you cast Martin Freeman, the audience brings pre-conceptions to him. But that was a very quiet and still portrayal he gave here.

Well the thing that motivated Martin, and he did read the stories and it is there, is that [Watson is] a doctor and a soldier. He’s made of competence. And there’s never any suggestion – although [Arthur Conan] Doyle does quite like taking the piss out of Watson a bit – from Sherlock Holmes that Doctor Watson is anything other than the most competent man you will ever meet. Not a genius, like Sherlock Holmes. But utterly sensible, utterly brave, utterly reliable. And that’s critical, and that’s what Martin wanted to bring to it.
This is the man who a genius would rely on. In the literary Sherlock Holmes stories, although he doesn’t think that Doctor Watson is very bright, he does think that he will get it right, and do it right. He is made of solid steel competence. And that’s what Martin was very keen to bring to the part.

I think a lot of people expect Tim from The Office from him, too. But he went right against that.
I remember being quite surprised at the beginning that he was so adamant he wasn’t going to do those kind of comic riffs. And as he grew in confidence he did start throwing in a few. His reaction to the end of the gay conversation [in A Study In Pink] I think is hilarious, and he can do that. But he was very keen to separate it from Tim. Not because he was trying to be wanky, just that that’s not what Doctor Watson is. He’s a soldier, and he kind of likes it.

[via]