MAsters of the universe?
151
show has always been like that – it was born, after all, out of a friendship
and a marriage. Choosing to work with the people you love isn’t a stupid or
a sentimental decision – it’s one of the smartest decisions you can make.” 70
Here, Moffat refers to his friendship with Gatiss, and his marriage to Sue
Vertue, a producer and Board Director at Hartswood Films, which produces
Sherlock, amongst many other successful television programs. 71 Certainly, it
is tempting to reflect, working with these people he loves is clearly a smart
decision to have made. However, the statement, on the surface seemingly so
punchily emotional and direct, is open to at least two interpretations. Either
it makes Moffat the neoliberal child of Thatcher, promoting family values
and the entrepreneurial model of the (large) family business; or (an unlikely
vision perhaps), it gives Moffat the air of a utopian socialist, promoting
the family relationship as cottage industry, in preference to the alienated,
capitalist labor of working for people one does not love. Or does it appear
to promote the virtues of meritocracy (“smart, not sentimental”), while
actually practicing a mild strain of nepotism, of the sort which enables the
successful middle class to entrench their economic and cultural advantages?
After all, in Marxian terms, Moffat could be said to have married into the
means of production: the “smart” move of endogamy.
As well as skillfully using rhetoric to reframe Sherlock’s casting decisions,
Moffat also displays a press officer’s impatience with potentially critical
reporting. At the BAFTA screening of “His Last Vow” Maggie Brown from
The Guardian newspaper asks: “Despite the record ratings, the first episode
in particular was not a universal success with critics or with some viewers
who branded it rather self-indulgent and self-referential. I wonder how you
would respond to that criticism?” Moffat’s reply is instructive:
Any reply I give to you would allow you to write an article in which you’d
say “Steven Moffat responds to the critics” or to the critical reaction,
Maggie, stop it! [laughter]. We had a brilliant response from the critics
as you well know, I read the press reaction, and I read as much as I can
of the other stuff. That’s not true, so don’t put me in the position where
I’m saying “I defend…” a sensationally good record which is what it was,
come on. [Big round of applause]. 72
70 In pre-publicity for Sherlock series four, Abbington and Freeman revealed that they had
separated after 16 years together. See Foster, “Martin Freeman.”
71 Alongside Moffat, Sue Vertue, and Moffat’s sister-in-law Debbie Vertue are the Board
Directors, and Moffat’s mother-in-law Beryl Vertue is the company’s Chairman.
72 Mellor, “Sherlock: His Last Vow Q&A.”
151
show has always been like that – it was born, after all, out of a friendship
and a marriage. Choosing to work with the people you love isn’t a stupid or
a sentimental decision – it’s one of the smartest decisions you can make.” 70
Here, Moffat refers to his friendship with Gatiss, and his marriage to Sue
Vertue, a producer and Board Director at Hartswood Films, which produces
Sherlock, amongst many other successful television programs. 71 Certainly, it
is tempting to reflect, working with these people he loves is clearly a smart
decision to have made. However, the statement, on the surface seemingly so
punchily emotional and direct, is open to at least two interpretations. Either
it makes Moffat the neoliberal child of Thatcher, promoting family values
and the entrepreneurial model of the (large) family business; or (an unlikely
vision perhaps), it gives Moffat the air of a utopian socialist, promoting
the family relationship as cottage industry, in preference to the alienated,
capitalist labor of working for people one does not love. Or does it appear
to promote the virtues of meritocracy (“smart, not sentimental”), while
actually practicing a mild strain of nepotism, of the sort which enables the
successful middle class to entrench their economic and cultural advantages?
After all, in Marxian terms, Moffat could be said to have married into the
means of production: the “smart” move of endogamy.
As well as skillfully using rhetoric to reframe Sherlock’s casting decisions,
Moffat also displays a press officer’s impatience with potentially critical
reporting. At the BAFTA screening of “His Last Vow” Maggie Brown from
The Guardian newspaper asks: “Despite the record ratings, the first episode
in particular was not a universal success with critics or with some viewers
who branded it rather self-indulgent and self-referential. I wonder how you
would respond to that criticism?” Moffat’s reply is instructive:
Any reply I give to you would allow you to write an article in which you’d
say “Steven Moffat responds to the critics” or to the critical reaction,
Maggie, stop it! [laughter]. We had a brilliant response from the critics
as you well know, I read the press reaction, and I read as much as I can
of the other stuff. That’s not true, so don’t put me in the position where
I’m saying “I defend…” a sensationally good record which is what it was,
come on. [Big round of applause]. 72
70 In pre-publicity for Sherlock series four, Abbington and Freeman revealed that they had
separated after 16 years together. See Foster, “Martin Freeman.”
71 Alongside Moffat, Sue Vertue, and Moffat’s sister-in-law Debbie Vertue are the Board
Directors, and Moffat’s mother-in-law Beryl Vertue is the company’s Chairman.
72 Mellor, “Sherlock: His Last Vow Q&A.”