Thursday, October 17, 2013

A moment in Time.

Today, it seemed like an excellent day to pause, take a quiet moment, and just . . .

Respect the Cumberbatch.

This is going to seem a little redundant, a little "Yeah. Well, duh . . ." to the Cumberbitches, who now seem like vestal oracles, fore-sighted visionaries whose entranced states first pointed to that which was to come. I bow to their wise prophetic instincts. It's like we need a new evolutionary chart to take the place of that classic monkey-to-man thing, starting with William Gillette loping the Earth with his knuckles on the ground, working onward through a Neanderthalian Basil Rathbone, and finally arriving at Benedict Cumberbatch, upright and chin slightly tilted toward the heavens as a faint glow emanates from his very flesh.

Hyperbole? Maybe a little. But the dude made the cover of Time magazine. An actor who gained his first real name recognition for most of us by playing Sherlock Holmes. And instead of being typecast, as so many actors have in such an iconic role, went on to two more classic characters and perhaps the most notorious character of the cyber age. And made the cover of Time, just by being Benedict Cumberbatch.

The irony here at Sherlock Peoria is that the late Sherlockian Bob Burr, who was dismissive at best of BBC Sherlock, had a subscription to Time that ran out just before the Cumberbatch issue . . . almost like he was as psychic as a Cumberbitch, but with typical Burrian exactness.

Even if this is the peak of Mount Cumberbatch, it's a pretty respectable height, which is why I wanted to stop and mark the moment, just as I did earlier in the week with TV Guide. Can Oprah just put Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock on the cover of her 0 magazine by tomorrow, so we can pull off a Sherlock Holmes trifecta?

6 comments:

  1. Bob Burr might have been spared the worst: as I understand the Time website (I don't subscribe), Cumberbatch does not appear on the cover of the U.S. edition of Time, which has instead a cover illustration of its article on "The United States of Texas". The Cumberbatch cover is on the European and Asian editions. Besides, the article makes it clear that Time's interest in Cumberbatch is his portrayal of Julian Assange. I have no idea how Mr. Burr might have responded to that drama, but I think it is a good guess that the Baker Street Babes would not have organized themselves as the Wikileaks Babes had Cumberbatch never played in "Sherlock" and had gone straight to Assange...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, Time is Time. Still pretty darn cool.

      Delete
  2. Yes it is cool! Some of these commenters need to appreciate where we are on the Sherlockian Timeline. We missed the Gillette era. We witnessed the Rathbone/Bruce era through reruns. Some of us were lucky enough to witness the Brett/Burke/Hardwicke, and/or Livanov/Solomin era first hand, but most missed it, except in reruns. We should be counting our lucky stars to be first-hand witnesses to the Benedict Cumberbatch & Martin Freeman era.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, Anonymous, I do love your ever-changing personality!

      Delete
  3. And some of us just ignore it all and keep to the original Canon...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Julian who? Name rang no bells, don't care about Wikileaks. And I think that the only person Oprah would have on the cover of 'O' is... Oprah. So unless she dresses up like Sherlock Holmes (scary thought) I would not expect to find any Holmes's there. And don't let me get started on Rathbone being described as an Neanderthal!

    ReplyDelete