Elementary 2x10

[killerweasel.livejournal.com]

Discussion post for Elementary 2x10 'Tremors'.

Spoilers in the comments.

What did you think?

Comments

[darknessfactor.livejournal.com]

NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE NOPE.

That ending scene just about killed me. I just... this one left me speechless. The whole episode I was just frustrated at all of the characters.

[nausicaa83.livejournal.com]

Loved it, it was an awesome episode, although there was a lot of shouting at the screen on my part, some crying at the end, and this urge to just punch Holmes in the nose.

[flippet.livejournal.com]

I'm always sympathetic to Sherlock, and this episode was no exception.

I think they're gradually setting him up for a drastic, painful fall. He's on-edge, and things are spinning out of his control, and he *needs* that control.


I thought the scenes between Bell and Sherlock were gorgeous.

Bell totally chose to take the bullet. And both men are clearly conflicted about that.
It was some beautiful acting from each of them. In fact, it makes me want even more of the Bell/Holmes relationship, which I've been indifferent to before. They each get on each other's nerves, and yet Sherlock does grudgingly respect him (and did even before this), and Bell wasn't just jumping in front of a bullet out of instinct. They're irritated that they like each other to some degree, which fuels a level of dislike...it's a clusterfuck, but it's SO intriguing.

[darknessfactor.livejournal.com]

Ooh, I agree completely. I think that they've been showcasing Sherlock's darker side this season for a reason. I have a much longer, rambling analysis of this on my journal; you're welcome to take a look.

As a sidenote - did anyone else hear that Moriarty's coming back?

[flippet.livejournal.com]

Yes, very interesting. I like your note about guilt - I fully agree.

I also think there is conflict between the way he sees himself, the way he *wants* to see himself, and the way he *is*.

In this ep, Gregson echoed Watson's emphasis of the last episode - be. nice. - not because it's right or wrong, but because it's effective.

And Sherlock is doing his best to prove the opposite - that his usual methods of being direct to the point of being needlessly nasty are what actually work. And it just bit him in the ass. Or, more accurately, bit an innocent bystander whom he grudgingly respected.

More than almost anything else, Sherlock hates being wrong. And he *is* wrong in this case. He has managed to hurt Watson, personally and professionally, a couple of times now, and it's stacking up. And now he's drawn Bell into his web of dysfunctionality, and neither of them have deserved it.

But Sherlock is painfully arrogant, and it's torture for him to break down and admit that he is wrong - especially on the point that is so vitally important to him - his methods.


However, we know something that Bell/Watson/Gregson do not - Moriarty has weaseled her way back into his life. (I'm betting that we'll find out that they have been corresponding secretly, and that will be another blow to Watson. But it would explain why he's being so prickly with her, both deliberately and inadvertently - he's keeping it from her, when his better angels would tell him that she needs to know, because she can help him. But Watson 'deserted' him right at that moment, leaving an opening for Jamie, and now she has another foothold. And I wouldn't be surprised if he wants to gently 'punish' Watson for not fully being the 'crutch' that he was wanting to use her as, for stepping outside the cozy nest they'd created that was 'working so well' - for him.)


I think that in order to keep psychological/emotional control, Sherlock is pushing the idea that he is not 'nice', that he is more of a machine than a man - so that when this blows up, as it inevitably will, he can blame it on his 'nature', rather than some pretty shitty choices.

Understand, I'm not trying to argue the opposite - that he *is* 'nice', a sweet kitten trying to be a vicious tiger - he's not. But neither is he the heartless, cruel person that he tried to present to Watson. It's somewhere in the middle. Perhaps he thinks that if he shuts his softer side away, he will be protected from Moriarty this time - that he can dive back in, for ~reasons~, without getting hurt.


You're right - all his relationships are getting strained due to his own behaviour. His mention of his 'support system' was key - that system will start crumbling, and then what will he have? What is there to stop him from diving deep into his own darkness? Moriarty will exploit that.

The ep with Abigail was key too - it serves to highlight that....Sherlock is attracted to murderers. There is something about them, psychologically, that something deep inside him 'recognizes'. It's not just professionally - it's personally, even romantically. He understands them deep in his very bones. So then....what does that make him? Where is the line that separates him from them? How easily is it crossed, and what is the point of no return? Moriarty understands this about him too, and has no compunction about manipulating it. Which he knows all too well, but - he is arrogant. Likes to convince himself of invincibility (even when he 'knows better'). *Needs* to be invincible....otherwise...he might be truly, utterly lost to the darkness.


We only got a taste of Sherlock's darkness in "M". I think it's going to get ugly this season.

[darknessfactor.livejournal.com]

All of these are great points. I'm especially interested in the one about him blaming his 'nature'. What if that's a defense mechanism? A way of coping with (not only the accusations of others) himself when he makes mistakes? Maybe there's a small part of him that acknowledges that sometimes what he does isn't always right, and he shies away from that part of himself.

Oooh, I'd really like to know if he has been keeping up a correspondence with Moriarty since episode three. At first it seemed to me like he would ignore her letters and pretend like she didn't exist (which isn't exactly healthy, either), but like you mentioned: he has a fascination with murderers. Maybe his communications with Abigail serve as foreshadowing to the present time. He's doing the same with Moriarty in order to understand the workings of the mind of a criminal.

[flippet.livejournal.com]

Maybe his communications with Abigail serve as foreshadowing to the present time. He's doing the same with Moriarty in order to understand the workings of the mind of a criminal.

Oooh. yes! I hadn't connected those two specific points, but I think you're absolutely on to something there. :-) (This is why I love to bounce my ideas off of other people - they always come up with something I hadn't thought of.)

I think he's going to feel that if he armors himself up enough, he'll be able to get what he 'needs' from her, without being sucked in by her. But his current emotional 'betrayals' and mis-steps are going to trip him up. He is too damaged in the emotional arena to get by without help, but when he refuses that help out of arrogance....bad things will happen.

I also have a sneaking suspicion that Moriarty isn't even the 'bottom' that he's going to hit - she'll just be the catalyst and a swipe on the way down. Whatever Mycroft is cooking up sounds bigger (and Rob Doherty has said something to the effect that Moriarty isn't necessarily the 'big baddie' of this season).

Maybe there's a small part of him that acknowledges that sometimes what he does isn't always right, and he shies away from that part of himself.

I fully agree.

I do love to see him try, though. (Step Nine, the attempt to 'help' Bell.) It's a beautiful thing.

[darknessfactor.livejournal.com]

He always has that 'lost puppy' look on his face when he's fumbling to help someone. A bit like he doesn't quite understand what he did wrong in the first place.

I've also noticed lately that the only people he seems to show real, heartfelt compassion for are victims of abuse like himself. In that one episode when he rescued the slave girl, and later when he helped the woman who was taken by the serial killer, he puts aside all pretenses and is the most sincere we've ever seen him in his willingness to help them. There's no awkwardness to the way he does it. He's surprisingly kind.

Just wondering if that has anything to do with it.

[flippet.livejournal.com]

Yes! That's exactly why/where I don't believe him when he says that he is not a nice man.

He has hard edges, certainly, and not all of them are learned - I am willing to believe that some of them are most certainly innate.

But he *does* have tenderness and compassion in his heart, and that is an integral part of him as well. This is what Watson sees, and is drawing on.


His treatment of Watson is the exception to the rule (at least in his mind) - and that's interesting.


My thoughts just wandered in this direction...he's drawn to and compassionate to people who are broken in ways that leave them open to deep darkness - abuse victims. The two women you mentioned, Abigail, even the boy who later turned out to be the Balloon Man - before that part was apparent.

We're going to learn more of Moriarty's backstory - will this be part of it too? It would make sense.


So the interesting bit to me is...why is Watson the seeming exception? Is there more darkness in her than we've yet seen?


Ennh, I'm probably overthinking it. Would be interested in your thoughts on the watch/token below, though.

[darknessfactor.livejournal.com]

No, you're not over-thinking it at all. I just read somewhere that Rob Doherty had this idea about Watson's past - that her mother divorced her birth father and re-married. So we might find out a bit more about Watson's birth father.

[rap541.livejournal.com]

My guess is that this is the lead in to Sherlock having a serious relapse. Agree that Bell chose to take the bullett and to a certain point is turning Sherlock's offer down oit of spite.

[flippet.livejournal.com]

It's not spite, so much as pride. Bell has shown that he is a proud man - as is Sherlock, which is why they butt heads from time to time, but it's also why they can respect each other, even if neither particularly wants to openly own up to it.

Sherlock made it worse by waiting so long to visit Bell. And Bell needs someone to blame.

It likely appears, to Bell, that he cared enough about Sherlock (and Watson) to jump in front of a bullet for them - but only Watson cared enough come. Sherlock appeared indifferent (though it was really guilt and a difficulty with admitting to himself that he cares). Bell is hurt - in more ways than one - so he dishes that hurt back at the 'source'.

[rap541.livejournal.com]

Fair point, spite isn't really the right word.

And frankly, its not like working as a police officer has made Bell a rich man and now his livelyhood is possibly being taken away. He has the right to be angry - but I suspect he's more angry at himself.

I still think Sherlock is being set up for a relapse.

[flippet.livejournal.com]

Oh, totally!

Yes, Bell definitely has cause and right to be angry. I'm not defending Sherlock. I can see where he's coming from, but he's still in the wrong, because he's clinging to his idea of himself as 'above'...nearly everything, really.

Now, naturally Bell will recover (just due to the nature of the show), but it would be interesting to see what might happen if he didn't - how that relationship would change, especially to keep him close enough to be a regular. Might Sherlock and Watson allow him to work with them? Outside of the establishment? And how would that go down, exactly?

It's an interesting meandering thought, that is sure to never happen, LOL!

[flippet.livejournal.com]

Did anyone else notice, when Sherlock is explaining to Watson about the 'token' given to a Knight by his lady (the scarf on the Knight's wrist) - he conspicuously pulls his sleeve over his watch?

What's that about?


Especially in light of the entire story.

Sherlock was *way* too into-the-head of the Knight. (In fact, I'd argue that the way we saw the story told - with clear 'embellishments' that we viewed as if they were not embellishments, but actually happened - means that Sherlock is now an unreliable narrator, and in some way telling his own story, or what will be his story.)

Was the watch a token from his Queen? (If so, I kind of have issues with it. The shilling on his coat was a token, and he got rid of it. Why would he hang on to a watch, especially when you *choose* to wear a watch, and might forget a permanently-attached shilling pin.)

If it was - is the Queen still Moriarty? (If not, then who? He seemed to be self-consciously hiding the watch from Watson - I highly doubt it's from her.) Is the watch old, or new?

Or, was it less about hiding the watch, and more about covering the 'Discipline' tattoo on his wrist - which has been prominently on display this season, at times when Sherlock has been distinctly *lacking* in discipline? (when icing his hand after punching the serial killer, and during the NA meeting when talking about not being as focused as he'd prefer.) (Regardless if this is it or not - I love those little moments/details so hard.)


Also - someone on twitter noted that the 'prosecutor's' name is Cassandra - and if you're familiar with Greek tragedy, you know that in Agamemnon, Cassandra is the seer whose warnings go unheeded, and King Agamemnon is murdered at the hands of his Queen, Clytemnestra.

I'm suspicious that the name isn't an accident, here, given the juxtaposition with the story of the death of a 'Queen' who 'had to be killed' in order to 'save her soul'.


Also, I loved the line about saving a mentally unstable (and innocent) man from prison. I do think that Sherlock was (or will be) identifying very closely with this young man and his turmoil.

Let me know your thoughts, or even if you think this is all a crazy flight of fancy, LOL!

[darknessfactor.livejournal.com]

Wow, I wouldn't have noticed that.

I don't know... it could be something as simple as a nervous habit of his (like bouncing up and down at certain points in his speech). Or it could be something more, like you suggested.

Most likely the 'Queen' would be Moriarty. Maybe it's foreshadowing; a knight's duty is to help his Queen. I'm wondering if they'll reveal that Moriarty's cruelty and apathy to the emotions of others stems from suffering abuse herself. I doubt they will go there, as I think that would undermine her character somewhat, but then again Elementary has always taken a very human approach to the characters. If Moriarty suffered abuse, Sherlock might actually want to reach out and help her. Or maybe he would acknowledge that he himself was in no state to help her and ask Watson to. She and Watson are supposed to have some interesting interactions in the future, too.

I know this is unlikely, but the other possibility for the Queen might be his mother. We've heard him mention his father several times, but I don't believe he's ever even spoken of his mother. I suspect there's a reason for that.

[flippet.livejournal.com]

Check it out at 2:32, see what you think. http://www.cbs.com/shows/elementary/video/ (http://www.cbs.com/shows/elementary/video/)

I wouldn't be surprised if Moriarty suffered abuse - of course, Sherlock couldn't have known that at first, and yet was still attracted. I'll be slightly annoyed if that's so, because it is all a bit too 'neat' and easy. I prefer to think that Moriarty's just a bad seed, but my preferences really don't factor, LOL!


I don't like the vague idea of Watson having suffered abuse either, I really hope they don't go there, making it seem that Sherlock just has a sixth sense for sniffing this sort of thing out and being attracted to it, even if he has no direct knowledge of it.

I mean, that would be somewhat too 'neat' too - if Joan has that more or less same trigger for darkness, but has chosen to basically 'live in the light' instead, while Sherlock feels compelled to flirt with his darkness. It's an old story, often a good one, but we've heard it before. I'd like something more original.


Hm. Queen-as-mother...perhaps. (Though I don't think the watch would figure in, there.)

I don't believe that Sherlock's mother is mentioned in Conan Doyle canon either though, so that's what I chalk that up to. I don't imagine that the writers would pass up a chance to invent their own backstory for it however, eventually.

My personal theory is that she died when Sherlock was quite small, possibly in childbirth (which might explain Papa Holmes’ apparent detachment from Sherlock), or possibly a few years later - enough that Sherlock remembers her in an idealistic, infantile manner. Perhaps she became ill, or there was an accident (or even suicide) - any of which could involve something that Sherlock could blame on his father, perhaps. Sherlock may have been aware of his mother being miserable, or neglected, and wouldn’t have had all the information, just enough to build anger, and resentment, and abandonment issues.

Sherlock was shipped off to boarding school at a young age - it doesn’t require a single parent, of course, but that might make it a more natural course of action, especially for a busy (and possibly grieving) executive. Plus, Sherlock was viciously abused at school - I get the impression that his father was unmoved by whatever protests Sherlock may have tried to make - I find it difficult to believe that a mother would too, which strengthens my presumption that his mother was no longer living to tell. (And a recently-bereaved-and-‘abandoned’ little boy who also happens to be extra-smart makes a perfect target.)

He also mentioned having a...what was it, nanny, governess? this episode, which also seems to lend credence to the idea. Of course, she might have been a busy executive too, I suppose, but I prefer the death angle.

[mantriddrone.livejournal.com]

worst episode to date. the whole flashback style of the episode left me cold.

did the writers forget that Holmes managed to get Bell off a murder charge some time ago. surely he shouldn't be acting as ungrateful as he is?

Holmes is getting more irritating as the series progresses. much like a precocious child