![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatAmong other things...
1. Victoria and The Crown I also watched another episode of "The Crown", episode 7. I think I have three more? Tried "Victoria", but gave up half-way through, may or may not come back to it. I agree with the critics on "Victoria", if you've been watching Netflix's superior "The Crown", "Victoria" falls a bit flat. Part of the problem with "Victoria" is that the writers have decided to try a Downton Abbey set up, we have the servants and Victoria's story going on simultaneously, which worked in Downton Abbey but not here. Here it is distracting, and a bit tedious. Also, Jenna Coleman's Victoria is played as a wee bit too eager and over-the-top, makes me miss Clair Foy's more understated performance as Elizabeth. After watching twenty minutes of it, I flipped to the 7th episode of The Crown, which is hardly fair, but there you go.
2. Sherlock - the final or last episode which I think is called The Musgrove Case? -- I've mixed feelings about the episode. I think it was in many ways a muddled mess from a plot, writing, and direction standpoint. Careening here and there, and way too gimmicky and fond of its own cleverness. That said, there were things I liked about it from a characterization and metaphorical stance. I don't think the plot made a lot of sense, and various bits defied logic, but metaphorically and character wise, it was interesting.
Sherlock is a self-described sociopath, although I've never thought of him as one. And he doesn't see himself as a good or moral man, which I think runs counter to his own actions -- whereupon he constantly does whatever can be done to save another's life at risk to his own.
In this episode, the writer's go to great length's to prove him wrong. I'm not sure this is necessary. Also throughout, I began to wonder about the writers' issues with women. Although, perhaps they are just trying to stick within the noir underpinnings...women, as previously stated, do not fare well in noir.
Euros..reminded me a lot of Moriarty, and felt like a female version of Moriarty, which in a way goes a long way towards explaining both Sherlock and Mycroft. Also Sherlock's weird obsession with Moriarty, to the extent that he got distracted during Mary's case and didn't realize the case in the first episode was related to Mary not Moriarity. Also in the second case, he's similarly distracted by Moriarity, and Culverton is a lot like Moriarity or is a substitute. It's in the final one that we see the predecessor, his sociopathic sister, who has no sense of right and wrong, or any conscience to speak of, at least it doesn't appear so.
I was unclear about the ending...was the girl on the plane bit supposed to show us a split in Euros personality? That inside the sociopath, was an innocent child who just wanted to come back to earth and home to her family? It was equally unclear how she got her brother in that well, and the degree to which Sherlock participated. Mycroft alludes to the fact that he may have, in stating that she was able to reprogram people into doing horrible things at the age of five, which resulted in a tragedy that involved Sherlock.
The writer's leave a lot of the story, the more interesting bits, on the editing room floor. Leaving the audience to conjecture. While providing the less interesting and somewhat cliche ones onscreen. As a result, the plot was hard to follow and jarring in places -- it was, dare I say, bogged down by its own cleverness. Ironic that -- the ego of the writers got in the way of the story, just as Sherlock's ego often gets in the way of solving the case.
There's a bit with Molly...where I began to realize maybe it wasn't a dog that died, since the coffin is child-sized, and has "I love you" written on it. Euros is clearly trying to turn her younger Brother into herself -- he thinks like she does, or so she thinks, but has those pseky emotions, if she can just turn them off. At least that's what appeared to be her plan for a while.
But then the story twists...and the writers appear to be trying to redeem their villain, which is nice and all, but at this point it's hard to see why. I liked that Sherlock realizes the song is in reality an SOS, from Euros to him, to have him save her from her own self-imposed oblivion. In fact she visits him with the same goal in mind in the second episode as Faith-- or so it seems, or at least he catches on to it at the time, when he takes her gun away from her. And in saving Euros from herself, he manages to save John and himself as well or so it seems. It's all rather convoluted and not all that clear. After seeing it a second time, I picked that bit up.
I literally had to ignore the plot inconsistencies and high-jinks in order to get to the meat of the story, which was a simple enough tale of a man struggling to deal with his family dysfunction. Euros was brillaint, but lonely, and envied her younger brother's friendship with the slightly older one. Not sure, but it appears Redbeard may have either been her twin or Sherlock's, we're not told. Not only does Sherlock block it out, but he rewrites it, with assistance from his brother who maintains the delusion. This makes me wonder if Sherlock helped Euros kill his brother and best-friend, and that's what made him scream and block out the memory? If she manipulated him into it? If so, again, we are never told and it is never clarified. But that explanation makes the most sense...and would go a long ways to explaining Sherlock, Mycroft, and the crazy plot.
Again, it's not clear, because you can easily interpret it the other way around. That Euros somehow lead the younger brother into the well. How he didn't die immediately, when he fell, I don't know. Also how did she get him down there? Push him? It's a deep well. The logistics don't quite work, but the logistics don't work in the entire story..so what the hell. Also, why couldn't the parents locate him? Again...the logistics don't make a lot of sense, so best not to think to hard on them.
Anyhow, assuming Euros lead him into the well, he wasn't found, and no one could locate him...then told everyone long after the fact, resulting in her imprisonment by her uncle then later her brother, while the younger brother blocked out the memories of both his playmate/younger brother and Euros.
I think the first explanation works the best -- because it fits with why she's managed to manipulate people at Sherringford. Also, with Sherlock's own manipulation of people over the years and how it plagues him. And why she tries at first to reprogram or manipulate Sherlock into killing people.
While all along, hoping she fails, because the first time she did it, years ago, almost doomed them both -- and it's why only Sherlock can save her, and why she reaches out to him, and why she's obsessed with him -- because he both aided her crime and was the reason for the crime, as well as one of the tragic consequences.
And...it goes a long way towards explaining Sherlock's interactions with women. And how he isn't quite sure he can trust himself around them.
But, the writers work hard to confuse you. It's almost as if they don't want the audience to understand or get their story. Which I found to be a bit tedious. Writing that is clever for its own sake irritates me. It's showing off and very ego driven. Writing is about communication -making stories accessible to the reader or viewer. And I think this story wasn't as accessible as it could have been.
[ETA: As your librarian points out below, it's apparently Sherlock's friend Trevor, a neighbor, who is in the well, not his little brother. There were only three siblings. That sort of explains a few things...but the fact that I was distracted by the logistical plot holes and lost that bit...doesn't bode well for the writing.]
1. Victoria and The Crown I also watched another episode of "The Crown", episode 7. I think I have three more? Tried "Victoria", but gave up half-way through, may or may not come back to it. I agree with the critics on "Victoria", if you've been watching Netflix's superior "The Crown", "Victoria" falls a bit flat. Part of the problem with "Victoria" is that the writers have decided to try a Downton Abbey set up, we have the servants and Victoria's story going on simultaneously, which worked in Downton Abbey but not here. Here it is distracting, and a bit tedious. Also, Jenna Coleman's Victoria is played as a wee bit too eager and over-the-top, makes me miss Clair Foy's more understated performance as Elizabeth. After watching twenty minutes of it, I flipped to the 7th episode of The Crown, which is hardly fair, but there you go.
2. Sherlock - the final or last episode which I think is called The Musgrove Case? -- I've mixed feelings about the episode. I think it was in many ways a muddled mess from a plot, writing, and direction standpoint. Careening here and there, and way too gimmicky and fond of its own cleverness. That said, there were things I liked about it from a characterization and metaphorical stance. I don't think the plot made a lot of sense, and various bits defied logic, but metaphorically and character wise, it was interesting.
Sherlock is a self-described sociopath, although I've never thought of him as one. And he doesn't see himself as a good or moral man, which I think runs counter to his own actions -- whereupon he constantly does whatever can be done to save another's life at risk to his own.
In this episode, the writer's go to great length's to prove him wrong. I'm not sure this is necessary. Also throughout, I began to wonder about the writers' issues with women. Although, perhaps they are just trying to stick within the noir underpinnings...women, as previously stated, do not fare well in noir.
Euros..reminded me a lot of Moriarty, and felt like a female version of Moriarty, which in a way goes a long way towards explaining both Sherlock and Mycroft. Also Sherlock's weird obsession with Moriarty, to the extent that he got distracted during Mary's case and didn't realize the case in the first episode was related to Mary not Moriarity. Also in the second case, he's similarly distracted by Moriarity, and Culverton is a lot like Moriarity or is a substitute. It's in the final one that we see the predecessor, his sociopathic sister, who has no sense of right and wrong, or any conscience to speak of, at least it doesn't appear so.
I was unclear about the ending...was the girl on the plane bit supposed to show us a split in Euros personality? That inside the sociopath, was an innocent child who just wanted to come back to earth and home to her family? It was equally unclear how she got her brother in that well, and the degree to which Sherlock participated. Mycroft alludes to the fact that he may have, in stating that she was able to reprogram people into doing horrible things at the age of five, which resulted in a tragedy that involved Sherlock.
The writer's leave a lot of the story, the more interesting bits, on the editing room floor. Leaving the audience to conjecture. While providing the less interesting and somewhat cliche ones onscreen. As a result, the plot was hard to follow and jarring in places -- it was, dare I say, bogged down by its own cleverness. Ironic that -- the ego of the writers got in the way of the story, just as Sherlock's ego often gets in the way of solving the case.
There's a bit with Molly...where I began to realize maybe it wasn't a dog that died, since the coffin is child-sized, and has "I love you" written on it. Euros is clearly trying to turn her younger Brother into herself -- he thinks like she does, or so she thinks, but has those pseky emotions, if she can just turn them off. At least that's what appeared to be her plan for a while.
But then the story twists...and the writers appear to be trying to redeem their villain, which is nice and all, but at this point it's hard to see why. I liked that Sherlock realizes the song is in reality an SOS, from Euros to him, to have him save her from her own self-imposed oblivion. In fact she visits him with the same goal in mind in the second episode as Faith-- or so it seems, or at least he catches on to it at the time, when he takes her gun away from her. And in saving Euros from herself, he manages to save John and himself as well or so it seems. It's all rather convoluted and not all that clear. After seeing it a second time, I picked that bit up.
I literally had to ignore the plot inconsistencies and high-jinks in order to get to the meat of the story, which was a simple enough tale of a man struggling to deal with his family dysfunction. Euros was brillaint, but lonely, and envied her younger brother's friendship with the slightly older one. Not sure, but it appears Redbeard may have either been her twin or Sherlock's, we're not told. Not only does Sherlock block it out, but he rewrites it, with assistance from his brother who maintains the delusion. This makes me wonder if Sherlock helped Euros kill his brother and best-friend, and that's what made him scream and block out the memory? If she manipulated him into it? If so, again, we are never told and it is never clarified. But that explanation makes the most sense...and would go a long ways to explaining Sherlock, Mycroft, and the crazy plot.
Again, it's not clear, because you can easily interpret it the other way around. That Euros somehow lead the younger brother into the well. How he didn't die immediately, when he fell, I don't know. Also how did she get him down there? Push him? It's a deep well. The logistics don't quite work, but the logistics don't work in the entire story..so what the hell. Also, why couldn't the parents locate him? Again...the logistics don't make a lot of sense, so best not to think to hard on them.
Anyhow, assuming Euros lead him into the well, he wasn't found, and no one could locate him...then told everyone long after the fact, resulting in her imprisonment by her uncle then later her brother, while the younger brother blocked out the memories of both his playmate/younger brother and Euros.
I think the first explanation works the best -- because it fits with why she's managed to manipulate people at Sherringford. Also, with Sherlock's own manipulation of people over the years and how it plagues him. And why she tries at first to reprogram or manipulate Sherlock into killing people.
While all along, hoping she fails, because the first time she did it, years ago, almost doomed them both -- and it's why only Sherlock can save her, and why she reaches out to him, and why she's obsessed with him -- because he both aided her crime and was the reason for the crime, as well as one of the tragic consequences.
And...it goes a long way towards explaining Sherlock's interactions with women. And how he isn't quite sure he can trust himself around them.
But, the writers work hard to confuse you. It's almost as if they don't want the audience to understand or get their story. Which I found to be a bit tedious. Writing that is clever for its own sake irritates me. It's showing off and very ego driven. Writing is about communication -making stories accessible to the reader or viewer. And I think this story wasn't as accessible as it could have been.
[ETA: As your librarian points out below, it's apparently Sherlock's friend Trevor, a neighbor, who is in the well, not his little brother. There were only three siblings. That sort of explains a few things...but the fact that I was distracted by the logistical plot holes and lost that bit...doesn't bode well for the writing.]
no subject
Date: 2017-01-18 11:33 pm (UTC)The reason -- we are lead to believe she's not real and possibly hallucination, is that they are doing a sort of parallel narrative with Watson. Watson is shown talking to his dead wife, Sherlock is shown talking to Culverton's dead daughter? That's the mislead, maybe the daughter is a ghost? When it's revealed that the daughter is alive and Culverton didn't kill her, and that the piece of paper she left him is behind...the question is why was she? Turns out she's Euros, Sherlock's dead sister...another ghost. Or is she? Then we have the reveal that Mary Watson may not just be a hallucination in John's head but also a ghost, because Sherlock hears and sees her, or refers to it. And the final reveal that Euros isn't a ghost after all, because she appears to John and shoots him. Then in the final episode, they play Mycroft with the whole ghost bit regarding Euros...
So, yeah that made sense. Also, Euros is insinuating herself into the friendship of Watson and Sherlock, she's helps Sherlock find the case he needs to heal his relationship with Watson, she pushes Watson towards Sherlock as his psychologist...and in the previous episode, she pushes Watson to cheat on his wife. (Actually, I'm not sure Euros being the girl on the bus works, and I didn't really understand her motivation there, except that the writers wanted a through line. ie. A villain that was in each episode, first lurking in the background as a potential menace, then more and more prevalent. Similar to how they used Moriarity in previous seasons.)
I do, however, think it was far more convoluted than it needed to be. According to my mother, my father gave up on it entirely. He loves mysteries and had enjoyed the previous seasons, but found this one unwatchable.
no subject
Date: 2017-01-18 11:39 pm (UTC)I think it goes completely unexplained. My own guess would be that she was shadowing John to learn about him, noticed his attention and decided to run with it.
Regarding the whole thing with her playing Faith, I'm thinking it was somewhat similar. She wants to see how Sherlock ticks. However, the whole reason she's "Faith" gets handwaved with a completely inexplicable line -- that it was Culverton Smith who gave her the list that the real Faith wrote. What? Why on earth would he do that?
no subject
Date: 2017-01-18 11:56 pm (UTC)owever, the whole reason she's "Faith" gets handwaved with a completely inexplicable line -- that it was Culverton Smith who gave her the list that the real Faith wrote. What? Why on earth would he do that?
This goes back to why I think this season worked better metaphorically than plot-wise. The logistics don't quite make sense.
I can't imagine Culverton Smith giving anyone that list. But, Euros does exhibit the ability in episode 3 of manipulating people into doing things they don't want to do. So, she may have manipulated Smith into giving it to her. That's a bit of a fanwank, I think. The only other reason would be if ...she managed to convince him that Sherlock would be a challenge, and if she gave Sherlock the list -- he'd get to take on the Great Sherlock Holmes and maybe beat him at his own game? That, I can see Smith going along with -- and it works with the rest of the plot, in that Smith seems to be a step ahead of Sherlock through most of the episode.