Defying analysis: Sherlock S3-S4
Dec. 16th, 2018 10:06 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
marsdaydreamFrom Tumblr:
Thoughts on meta and analysis in the post-S4 world.
I’ve written a lot of Sherlock meta in my time, and I loved doing it. But one of the things I’m struggling with, after S4, is whether or not it’s actually worthwhile to approach the show analytically anymore.
In retrospect,Sherlock wanted to be two things at once: serious drama, and just-for-fun action. It wanted to be taken seriously, but also not be taken seriously at all. The end result was like whiplash: huge plot twists that had no lasting consequences. The writers wanted to be able to raise the stakes like a drama, but walk away unscathed like an action movie.
Moffat in particular was criticized for this pattern in Doctor Who, and it looks like his work on Sherlock was similar, most notably in S3-S4, which had a multi-episode plot arc. Examples of big twists / no consequences in Sherlock: Mary shoots Sherlock, Sherlock and John are fine with it. Sherlock shoots Magnussen, problem erased. Sherlock ODs and hallucinates an entire episode, no one mentions it again. Molly gets emotionally tortured over the phone, turns up smiling at the end. 221B blows up, gets put right back together. Lots of critics have written about this problem, often called the Moffat reset button. A particularly telling quote about Doctor Who, back in 2013:
Moffat is a great emotional storyteller: He’s a master manipulator (and I don’t say that in a pejorative sense) who hits all the right emotional beats, but if you make even a cursory attempt to unpack the logic of his storylines, the whole thing collapses.
I’m just guessing here, but: Moffat (and Gatiss) wanted to have fun. They didn’t want responsibility. They didn’t want to plan these arcs in detail over a series of multiple episodes, they didn’t want any messy aftermath, they wanted to pick up as if it was all a lightweight joke and start a new episode or idea once any given Big Moment was done. Because they wanted their fun action show, like the big thrill of an amusement park ride, meant to be forgotten once it was done.
This means that while the writers gave us scenes that, on the surface, asked for a lot of emotional investment, they were also quick to deliver the equivalent of a slap on the wrist to those same viewers who became emotionally invested. The primary example of this is Sherlock’s Reichenbach jump, recently voted the BBC’s #1 dramatic moment of all time, but which was resolved in an episode that pretended not to explain it, and made fun of the very viewers who loved it the most.
The thing is, you can’t simultaneously ask for investment, and then ask fans to remember not to be invested. One of the things has to go. And unfortunately, over time, it’s the emotional investment, which falls apart on repeat viewings when the extended plot arc turns out to make no sense.
The deceptive thing, here, is that viewed in the moment, each dramatic scene in Sherlock is beautifully done. It’s so easy to get caught up in the fantastic performances, the production, the editing. These incredible scenes demand a viewer’s attention, and seem on the surface to be worthy of analysis. But the minute they’re held up to extensive scrutiny, or put in context with the rest of the plot, they fall apart. Not meant to be taken seriously after all.
As an example, let’s look at Mary’s plot arc. In retrospect, after S4, we know Mycroft knew Mary’s AGRA identity. We can also infer that Mary knew who Mycroft was. Yet when she was revealed as an assassin in HLV, these huge issues never came into play. We had big dramatic scenes of John finding out about her, of John kicking chairs, lots of High Drama weeping violins, which won an Emmy award – but no one asked the truly logical questions: Mary, why did you marry John, whose best friend’s brother hired you as an AGRA agent, and could have easily blown your cover? Viewed in the context of the greater plot arc, Mary’s character choices, her logic, her truth – all of it falls apart. Her decisions to stay close to John, to hide her past, to shoot Sherlock? Inexplicable.
Similarly, Mycroft’s plot arc withers under even cursory scrutiny: why didn’t he tell Sherlock about actual assassin Mary, when he stalked John for even coming near Sherlock in ASiP? Why, if he was so protective of his baby brother, would he give Eurus access to Moriarty? These are inconsistent, baffling character choices which are entirely swept under the rug.
The big difference between a show that genuinely strives for realistic emotion, and a show like Sherlock, is that the characters in Sherlock seem to behave at the whims of the writers, acting in service of plot ideas, rather than as independent agents. This is why we get this sort of character-based inconsistency: Mycroft is smarter than Sherlock, except when he makes stupid decisions because certain plot points have to happen. Sherlock is sometimes a genius, and sometimes can’t see a wall of glass, because – plot has to happen. The writers are doing this:
…rather than inhabiting the characters from the inside.
The painful part about Sherlock: the writers might have moved those characters around to serve the plot, but the actors inhabited the characters from the inside. The actors were right in there, doing a fucking great job of bringing truth to every single scene. What we ended up seeing on screen was the work of world-class, gifted actors, bringing meaning and believably and truth to character decisions that might have otherwise seemed questionable in the moment. But unpack all of it later, and the questions are there.
The thing is, it’s perfectly fine to write a show that’s not meant to be taken seriously. That’s a fun form of entertainment, nothing wrong with it at all. The problem lies in creating a show that deceptively behaves as if viewers should take it very seriously, when really the show doesn’t seem to want that at all.
It’s difficult to spend energy analyzing a show that defies analysis. Just because a character shows deep emotion on screen, doesn’t mean that emotion always makes sense in a greater context. In S3 and S4, which made up most of the multi-episode plot arc of Sherlock, viewers picked up on plenty of these character-based inconsistencies and questions, and now we’re all struggling to explain them. When really, the answer might be one big Occam’s Razor: These things don’t make sense, because they weren’t written to make sense. Clear the screen, wipe the page, it was all a bit of fun. Deep analysis need not apply.
1,245 notes
Thoughts on meta and analysis in the post-S4 world.
I’ve written a lot of Sherlock meta in my time, and I loved doing it. But one of the things I’m struggling with, after S4, is whether or not it’s actually worthwhile to approach the show analytically anymore.
In retrospect,Sherlock wanted to be two things at once: serious drama, and just-for-fun action. It wanted to be taken seriously, but also not be taken seriously at all. The end result was like whiplash: huge plot twists that had no lasting consequences. The writers wanted to be able to raise the stakes like a drama, but walk away unscathed like an action movie.
Moffat in particular was criticized for this pattern in Doctor Who, and it looks like his work on Sherlock was similar, most notably in S3-S4, which had a multi-episode plot arc. Examples of big twists / no consequences in Sherlock: Mary shoots Sherlock, Sherlock and John are fine with it. Sherlock shoots Magnussen, problem erased. Sherlock ODs and hallucinates an entire episode, no one mentions it again. Molly gets emotionally tortured over the phone, turns up smiling at the end. 221B blows up, gets put right back together. Lots of critics have written about this problem, often called the Moffat reset button. A particularly telling quote about Doctor Who, back in 2013:
Moffat is a great emotional storyteller: He’s a master manipulator (and I don’t say that in a pejorative sense) who hits all the right emotional beats, but if you make even a cursory attempt to unpack the logic of his storylines, the whole thing collapses.
I’m just guessing here, but: Moffat (and Gatiss) wanted to have fun. They didn’t want responsibility. They didn’t want to plan these arcs in detail over a series of multiple episodes, they didn’t want any messy aftermath, they wanted to pick up as if it was all a lightweight joke and start a new episode or idea once any given Big Moment was done. Because they wanted their fun action show, like the big thrill of an amusement park ride, meant to be forgotten once it was done.
This means that while the writers gave us scenes that, on the surface, asked for a lot of emotional investment, they were also quick to deliver the equivalent of a slap on the wrist to those same viewers who became emotionally invested. The primary example of this is Sherlock’s Reichenbach jump, recently voted the BBC’s #1 dramatic moment of all time, but which was resolved in an episode that pretended not to explain it, and made fun of the very viewers who loved it the most.
The thing is, you can’t simultaneously ask for investment, and then ask fans to remember not to be invested. One of the things has to go. And unfortunately, over time, it’s the emotional investment, which falls apart on repeat viewings when the extended plot arc turns out to make no sense.
The deceptive thing, here, is that viewed in the moment, each dramatic scene in Sherlock is beautifully done. It’s so easy to get caught up in the fantastic performances, the production, the editing. These incredible scenes demand a viewer’s attention, and seem on the surface to be worthy of analysis. But the minute they’re held up to extensive scrutiny, or put in context with the rest of the plot, they fall apart. Not meant to be taken seriously after all.
As an example, let’s look at Mary’s plot arc. In retrospect, after S4, we know Mycroft knew Mary’s AGRA identity. We can also infer that Mary knew who Mycroft was. Yet when she was revealed as an assassin in HLV, these huge issues never came into play. We had big dramatic scenes of John finding out about her, of John kicking chairs, lots of High Drama weeping violins, which won an Emmy award – but no one asked the truly logical questions: Mary, why did you marry John, whose best friend’s brother hired you as an AGRA agent, and could have easily blown your cover? Viewed in the context of the greater plot arc, Mary’s character choices, her logic, her truth – all of it falls apart. Her decisions to stay close to John, to hide her past, to shoot Sherlock? Inexplicable.
Similarly, Mycroft’s plot arc withers under even cursory scrutiny: why didn’t he tell Sherlock about actual assassin Mary, when he stalked John for even coming near Sherlock in ASiP? Why, if he was so protective of his baby brother, would he give Eurus access to Moriarty? These are inconsistent, baffling character choices which are entirely swept under the rug.
The big difference between a show that genuinely strives for realistic emotion, and a show like Sherlock, is that the characters in Sherlock seem to behave at the whims of the writers, acting in service of plot ideas, rather than as independent agents. This is why we get this sort of character-based inconsistency: Mycroft is smarter than Sherlock, except when he makes stupid decisions because certain plot points have to happen. Sherlock is sometimes a genius, and sometimes can’t see a wall of glass, because – plot has to happen. The writers are doing this:
…rather than inhabiting the characters from the inside.
The painful part about Sherlock: the writers might have moved those characters around to serve the plot, but the actors inhabited the characters from the inside. The actors were right in there, doing a fucking great job of bringing truth to every single scene. What we ended up seeing on screen was the work of world-class, gifted actors, bringing meaning and believably and truth to character decisions that might have otherwise seemed questionable in the moment. But unpack all of it later, and the questions are there.
The thing is, it’s perfectly fine to write a show that’s not meant to be taken seriously. That’s a fun form of entertainment, nothing wrong with it at all. The problem lies in creating a show that deceptively behaves as if viewers should take it very seriously, when really the show doesn’t seem to want that at all.
It’s difficult to spend energy analyzing a show that defies analysis. Just because a character shows deep emotion on screen, doesn’t mean that emotion always makes sense in a greater context. In S3 and S4, which made up most of the multi-episode plot arc of Sherlock, viewers picked up on plenty of these character-based inconsistencies and questions, and now we’re all struggling to explain them. When really, the answer might be one big Occam’s Razor: These things don’t make sense, because they weren’t written to make sense. Clear the screen, wipe the page, it was all a bit of fun. Deep analysis need not apply.
1,245 notes
no subject
Date: 2018-12-17 03:28 pm (UTC)But ultimately you're right. The model of analysis the fandom brought to Sherlock ultimately was mismatched with the writers' approach. There's no point in asking "What does this mean" when the answer is almost invariably, "It's just what the writers felt like doing in that moment."
Now, asking, "What does it mean TO ME?" "What do I choose to make of this?" Probably we should have gone for those models from the start. And the fact that a lot of fans never understood that those were different models to begin with probably was one of the things that led to a lot of our grief.
But I think one thing that's worth mentioning, probably, is that this IS the same way ACD wrote the original Holmes stories. After all, he couldn't even keep Watson's first name straight. I sometimes wonder if, in years to come, with more emotional distance, we'll look back at BBC Sherlock and find it PERFECTLY in keeping with the original stories.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-18 12:50 am (UTC)I guess I've found my peace with the show by fanning s1-2, the McGuigan show, which held together much much better, and by considering s3-4 a crack AU of it written by someone whose kink was emotional and physical abuse.
no subject
Date: 2018-12-18 02:48 pm (UTC)S3-4...well. Shows jump the shark, sometimes. This one cleared it very neatly.