My problems with Sherlock Season 4

The fans were consistently told by the cast and crew before the fourth season of Sherlock aired, that this was going to be the best one yet. But after seeing each episode twice, I can honestly say that this is the worst series they've done. And I'm not the only one who thinks so.
I understand that each season has to be different, and that's OK. We were also told that this season would be the darkest one yet. And that's OK too. What I'm not OK with the complete change in certain characters and the incoherence of the storylines and overall arc of the season.

Here are my problems with it:

The thing about Mary

The thing about Mary is that she’s a very interesting character. She started out as the nice new wife of John Watson and Sherlock likes her. Then when Sherlock caught her red handed trying to murder Magnusson, she ruthlessly shot him.

For John’s sake, he doesn’t turn her in and tricks her into confessing what she did.

Sherlock, weirdly, forgives her straight away, while John is absolutely furious and doesn’t speak to her for several months. He decides to forgive her on Christmas day and destroys the USB key containing her past.

In The Six Thatchers, she is integrated as part of the crime solving gang, after she gives birth to a daughter, Rosie.

This is where things start to go wrong. The cast and crew of Sherlock said that the last thing they wanted was for Mary to become a wedge between Sherlock and John. But in this episode, she ends up doing just that.

Sherlock and John hardly interact, with the plot being more and more about Mary than about Sherlock and John’s relationship. Her past comes back to bite her, all the while Sherlock repeatedly states that she is under his protection as part of a “holy vow” to be there for her, John and the baby.

That vow breaks when he antagonizes an old lady named Vivian Norbury, and she shoots him, only for Mary to dive in front of the bullet, and dying of the wounds.

We all knew Mary was going to die. In the ACD books, she dies, but of unknown causes. What I didn’t expect was John would blame Sherlock for her death and cut all contact with him. The heroes lose, and nothing at Baker Street will ever be the same again.

The problem is, despite being dead, she still comes back through silly video tapes, sending Sherlock on a mission to “Save John Watson” by putting himself through drug hell, so that John can save him, thus saving himself.

It would have been so much easier had she been a full-on villain who was jealous of Sherlock and John’s relationship. Her relationship with John was the best thing that ever happened to her and didn’t want anyone coming in the way of that. Even Amanda Abbington, who plays Mary, says she still doesn’t know why she had to shoot Sherlock. Jealously would have been the perfect motivator, but apparently it isn’t. Thus it makes no sense.

The writers wanted so desperately for everyone to like Mary and become one of the “team” that they end up ruining the best relationship in the show.

The tragedy of John Watson

If there is one thing that was always true to the character of John Watson - is that he’s an incredibly loyal and brave man who would do anything for the ones he loves.

All of this changes in season 4. Despite having a new baby and enjoying domestic bliss with his wife and adventures with his best friend, he feels the need to start cheating on his wife with a woman he met on the bus. He’s obviously not happy with Mary. In his Last Vow, he seemed unhappy because he was missing Sherlock. But here, he had no reason whatsoever to start an affair. For the record he only texted her, but he thought about cheating, and that’s enough.

Then when Mary dies in his arms, he is utterly destroyed. Guilt, rage and sorrow seep out all at once. And he blames it all on Sherlock. The worst thing is that he wasn’t even there when Sherlock was egging Mrs Norbury on.

He sends Sherlock a letter, and we are never told what it actually contained.

Here's another writing tip - Chekhov's Gun.

Chekhov's writing tip about unnecessary information is the key to good writing:

"If you say in the first chapter that there is a rifle hanging on the wall, in the second or third chapter, it absolutely must go off. If it's not going to be fired, it shouldn't be hanging there."

And that's what happens a lot in this new series. I can't list all of them, but the letter is one of them. If they showed it and didn't bother to explain what was written, then why bother showing it?

John in The Lying Detective is a totally different person. He's still obviously upset by the death of Mary, and sees her everywhere. But he also drinks and  neglects his baby.

Sherlock is completely off his tits on drugs, to the point that he might kill himself. But John doesn't want to know. Until Mrs Hudson kidnaps Sherlock and brings him to his house.

I will say if there is one good change about this season, it's Mrs Hudson. She's a total baddass who take no shit from anyone,  and tells people a few home truths . 

Sherlock vows to take down creepy philanthropist Culverton Smith - after spending an evening talking to his daughter Faith. Smith likes to brag about killing people, and then drugging the people he bragged to, so that they forget everything.

In a morgue, Smith's "favorite room", Sherlock confronts Smith about his crimes, and about why Faith was so afraid of her father. When she comes in, however, she is not the same woman he met a couple of weeks ago - realizing she may have been a simple drug hallucination.

Completely devastated at once again failing badly, and suffering from drug withdrawal, he turns violent and brandishes a scalpel. John subdues him, and hits him, and hits him and hits him. He is left bleeding and crying on the floor, but assures security that John is entitled to do what he wants since he "killed his wife."

"Yes you did." John replies coldly.

This is the two of them at their very rock bottom. But the real tragedy of this is how little John cares about Sherlock at this point. 

The morgue scene is intertwined with John talking to Lestrade (criminally under-used in this season) about the incident. At one point he confesses that Sherlock killed Magnusson, and that "we should have known what to expect because of that."

What??? The first scene of TST involved the government covering up the murder so that no one else could know about it! And John, Sherlock's once most trusted friend is now telling a police officer that he killed a man. 

After the beating, he visits him in hospital, but instead of staying with him, he decides to once again cut him out of his life completely and offers him a parting gift: the walking stick last seen in A Study in Pink.

This is so far removed from the John Watson we know and love that he's hardly recognizable any more.

Although to be fair, and people seem to forget this, Sherlock has treated John pretty appallingly in the past. Not the least of which is disappearing for two years, pretending to be dead and show up out of the blue without an ounce of compassion. Or locking him in a lab and terrifying the crap out of him for an experiment in The Hounds of Baskerville. 

Smith shows up in the hospital room and proceeds to smother him to death. But all it took for John to realize he wasn't faking and that Smith was indeed a killer, was a video taped message from Mary. All of his antics, including picking on a bad guy, and "going to hell" was all part of Mary's "plan" to save "the man we both love": John Watson. 

Again it defeats the early incarnation of John believing in Sherlock even when the whole world was against him (see The Reichenbach Fall) and the fact that he needed his dead wife to tell him and Sherlock what to do is just dumb. 

He goes back to the hospital and restrains Smith just in time. Sherlock has recorded him confessing his crimes and he is thrown in jail.

At Baker Street, John apologizes of sorts by telling him that Mary's death was not his fault. Sherlock still hates himself for what happened.

John talks to Mary (the one he's been seeing in his head. So he's basically just talking to himself) and tearfully confesses he was not the man she thought he was. He then breaks down sobbing and Sherlock embraces him softly. 

"It's not OK. But it is what it is"

It's a truly lovely, emotional moment. But it doesn't last. 

At one point, and again this is another one of Chekhov's guns, Sherlock gets a text from Irene Adler. And John encourages him forcefully to take a chance with her and text her back. 

Here we go again with a character arc U Turn. John never liked Irene Adler because she was a dangerous sociopath (or was it jealousy?). Why is he telling him to go after a woman while at the same time saying she's no good for him?

John boldly states that a romantic entanglement with a woman would complete Sherlock as a human being. No it wouldn’t! He didn't have to before, in all the other adaptations, so why should he have to now?

All in all, I believe the sacrifice of John's good characteristics in exchange for angst was desperate and at worst, weak.

The problem of Eurus 

Eurus Holmes, the secret Holmes sibling, has more than a few problems. 

First of which: she was not something that was in the minds of Mofftiss from the beginning. She came about during the filming of His Last Vow. She was basically just a fun addition the writers decided to do at the last minute.

She reveals herself at the end TLD, to John. She disguised herself as three different people: the red haired girl who flirted with John on the bus. Faith Smith, who was not a hallucination as Sherlock thought. And John's German psychiatrist. The moment she divulges herself, she is shown to be both mad and dangerous. After having killed and stuffed John's other psychiatrist in a cupboard (and no one is bothering to look for her?) she shoots John in the face. 

With a dart gun, it's revealed in the final episode - named The Final Problem.

I can't even begin to start with how many problems this episode has.

But let's start with Eurus. First of all, she's not a believable character. She is without a doubt a female version of Hannibal Lecter. Her powers seem so far out there - in terms of manipulating people - getting inside their heads and controlling the whole prison in which she is interred - that they borderline on the supernatural. It would have made a lot more sense if it was sci-fi, but it's not. 

Here's another rule the writers blatantly missed. When you're telling a story and you're introducing that world to your audience: you have keep on going with that idea. If you stray too far away from what people loved about it in the first place, you'll end up losing your fans and audience. And that's exactly what happened here.

It feels less like a Sherlock Holmes inspired episode and more like a crappy retelling of Silence of the Lambs.

Critics said this episode was "the most sexist" the show. Indeed, apart from Mrs Hudson, all the women in the episode are portrayed as whiny and weepy females who's only characteristics serve as a mirror or a challenge for Sherlock. It seems Moftiss just don't know how to write women well.

But then again, neither do I, according to some. Despite me being a feminist and gay rights activist, my work has been criticized for being "anti-feminist" just because one of my main characters is a bit of a misogynist (he's a 17 year old kid with a troubled background).

Plus the ACD stories were written during Victorian times, so they were always going to be a bit on the rough side when it came to female characters. 

It is revealed that Redbeard, Sherlock's beloved dog was actually a little boy called Victor Trevor, Sherlock's best friend when they were kids. Eurus threw him in a well and left him to die because she felt left out of Sherlock's affection. 

It's a heartbreaking revelation, and unlike a lot of other stuff in this episode, it does make sense. As there are such things as repressed memories - when the memory is too traumatic. 

But the way Sherlock manages to get him and John out of his sister's dangerous traps is yet another let down.

All it took for him was to just simply give her a hug. And that’s it! The danger is over!

I understand that the message is “empathy wins”, but not at this price.

In conclusion – the whole thing falls apart for a very specific reason :Nobody cares about Eurus. She’s a new, thinly layered character that you simply can’t warm up to.

The absence of consequences

The writers explained that season 4’s theme would revolve around the consequences of what Sherlock and John had been doing.

What consequences exactly?

In the very first scene of The Six Thatchers, as I mentioned before, the consequences of Sherlock shooting Magnusson in the head in front of dozens of policemen are completely erased with manipulated video footage. Even though Mycroft was willing to send him off to his own death a while back.

The only real consequences we get is the shooting of Mary after Sherlock goads Vivian Norbury on, and Sherlock’s drug abuse that leads to his meltdown in the morgue.

But other than that, there are no lasting repercussions to the actions of John or the Holmes family. No mention of any of the families of the victims Eurus killed (especially Victor Trevor, who was such a huge part of Sherlock’s life). No media backlash against Sherlock and John as there was in The Reichenbach Fall. No exploration of the trauma of the supporting characters – namely Molly.

In The Final Problem, Sherlock is forced by Eurus to trick Molly into saying “I love you.” to him, or else she’ll be blown up. She can’t because she really does love him, and demands that he say it first. He does, twice. The second time, it sounds a lot more genuine. But it’s never explained whether he truly does love her as she does him, or if he’s just saying it to save her life.

In the end, Eurus revealed that Molly was never in danger.  Sherlock is so distraught that he destroys a coffin with his bare hands.

It’s once again another cheap move to install terror into the scene. They could have at least had an extra scene with Sherlock and Molly reconciling, other than writer Steven Moffat just sneering “Oh she just gets over it!”

People don’t just get over stuff, Moffat! 

In conclusion, this is why the “happy” ending isn’t satisfactory. There doesn’t seem to be any real sacrifice. The flat on Baker-Street was destroyed by one of Eurus’s drones, but the boys quickly fix it again and happily continue to solve crimes, while Mary needlessly narrates how great her “Baker Street Boys “ are.

It doesn’t feel like a happy ending to me.  I feel cheated and taken advantaged of. 

If the show does return, I will watch it for Ben and Martin’s performances, but my expectations will be considerably lowered.

Moftiss was right. Ben and Martin do not need this show to boost their careers – because they are glowing perfectly well without it.  They’re both in the Marvel Cinematic Universe: with Martin playing Everett Ross, and Benedict is now Doctor Strange. Neither one of them have been as GOOD as they have been in season four. They just get better and better each time.

But if the show never comes back (I don’t think that’s the case) it’s a very, very poor send off.

A Little Life by Hanya Yanagihara - Review

I’ve just finished reading A Little life by Hanya Yanagahara, and the tears cannot stop falling. I don’t think I’ve ever read something so profound, so heart-shattering, soul-breaking, brutally emotional and beautifully written.

I first heard about the novel from an interview with Benedict Cumberbatch, who praised it as a “wonderful, amazing book.” But I avoided buying it for two reasons. One was that it is the size of a brick, and second was the reviews: “The most depressing book you’ll ever read.”

To read something this long and apparently this depressing is a big commitment. But then I heard other people praise it: Literary agents, fellow writers and students of creative writing. So I went out and bought it.

And the reviews were not lying when they said how depressing and heart-breaking it was.

The story is about the friendship between four boys; Willem, Malcolm, JB and Jude. Willem is an aspiring actor, handsome and kind; Malcolm is a professional architect, JB is a painter, and Jude is a lawyer. The first chapter begins from the point of view of the first three, but gradually, it is made clear that Jude is the protagonist of the story – secretive, increasingly and irreparably broken,  and tormented by the unspeakable abuse he suffered as a child, his teenage years and his midlife. Though his adoptive parents, friends and boyfriend love him unconditionally, he still can’t refrain from cutting himself in order to feel alive.

I was sobbing, literally sobbing  at various parts of the book, thinking “Why, oh why did this happen? Why can’t these characters be happy? Why can’t you give them a break?”

It made me want to throw the damn book against the wall. But I admired what the author had done: created such an empathetic portrayal of life, and how life can define you or how you define it.  I also loved how the characters were both racially and sexually ambiguous and how it portrayed gay relationships with such tender and passionate love, as well as horrific circumstances, something you don’t usually see in the media or literature.

I don’t know whether or not to recommend it to people. It certainly is a magnificent, gorgeously written piece of work that deserves all the praise it gets. But despite being easy to read because of its structure and prose, it is by no means easy to get into its hard subject matters, such as child rape and prostitution, domestic violence, self abuse and relentless psychological suffering.

Still, I recommend it for being daring, making a 700 + page novel entertaining all the way through, taking its audience to a new level of empathy and caring for the characters, and hopefully in the their own lives as well. 

Dad's Army: Then and now

I recently watched a new British movie called Dad’s Army, a film about a platoon of eccentric, doddery soldiers serving as the Home Guard during World War II. It is based on the acclaimed late 1960s sitcom series of the same name. When I first found out they were making a movie of the series, which I had never fully watched when I was younger, I decided to give it a go, and I immediately fell in love with the extreme subtlety the show’s humour and the beloved characters. A comedy set during one of the most devastating wars in history would have flopped instantly, but it worked like a charm, and made the cast members, crew and audiences happy during the ten years that it aired. 

Not everyone was happy with the new film, however, as many (my grandfather included) wished the series would remain as it is with the original cast members.

Original cast:
From left to right, Captain Mainwaring, Sergeant Wilson, Corporal Jones, Private Frazier, Private Godfrey, Private Pike, Private Walker

One of the things the new film manages well is correct and critique one of the major problems of the original show: Giving the female characters more time and development on screen.

Obviously we love our boys, but the lack of female characters on the show bothered me enormously. Mrs Pike, Frank's mother and Wilson’s partner, was like a firecracker on the show, with her stern overprotective nature and no-nonsense attitude. Every time she appeared on screen, which was very rare and brief, she stole the show. 

And then there's Mrs Mainwaring, who was one of those  “unseen” characters on the series, mentioned as being a domineering, intimidating hermit. She is shown in the movie as a leader of female soldiers, helping out and encouraging their fellow men. And Cissy and Dolly, Godfrey’s elderly sisters (again, who’s personalities were described by their brother, but rarely personally displayed by themselves) play a big part in uncovering an important secret, which the men take forever to realize themselves.

There were some disappointments with the film for me, however. One is that corporeal Jack Jones, the old butcher, did not feature strongly enough, leaving most of his famous eccentricities behind (“Don’t panic!” “You’re breaking my constipation!” “I should like to volunteer…”). And although the film had a much more cinematic feel than the 1971 version (with the original cast members), as a story with a lot of potential poignancy, as well as the humour, it just didn’t deliver.

Still, this film was made with a lot of sympathy and heart. Toby Jones delivers a fantastic, performance as Captain Mainwaring. Even though I like Bill Nighy, I didn’t think he was that well suited for the role of sergeant Wilson.

Despite not looking much like the original cast, the actors playing the soldiers did relatively well, mostly due to sounding a lot like the characters. And the best out of all of them is undoubtedly Michael Gambon, who steals every scene as the doddery Godfrey. Oh, and two of the original cast members, Ian Lavender and Frank Williams (reprising his role as the Vicar) make cameos.

The film itself is not exactly a game changer for new audiences, but certainly works as a nice trip down memory lane, in some ways.

I admit, I had a bit of a tear in my eye when the original theme song came on at the end. We’ll never see any of the actors from the series again, so I’m personally glad the film was made, even if it feels more of a tribute, rather than a stand-alone film. 

Hamlet Review (15.10.2015)

I was lucky enough to get a ticket for the live broadcast of the buzzy and acclaimed theatre production of Hamlet at the Barbican, starring Benedict Cumberbatch in the titular role.  Since the show was sold out in minutes,  I opted to watch it in the cinemas instead.

Sitting in the theatre with a complementary glass of champagne, I became strangely nervous, only from the anticipation. The broadcast started with a small interview with Benedict about his role in the production, followed by a trip to a school where a few students performed the To Be Or Not To Be soliloquy, repeating the words in whispers.

Lyndsay Turner’s Hamlet opens with Hamlet sitting by a chest of clothes listening to Nat King Cole’s Nature Boy on a phonograph, in mourning for his father. This is complicated even further by the fact that his mother married his uncle in less than a month after his death.

Speaking to Horatio and then delivering his first soliloquy, Benedict’s Hamlet is a grief-stricken child who has lost his innocence.  His eyes are full of tears, which stream down and mingle with sweat, his hand trembles and his voice breaks as he speaks.  Putting all of that real emotion into a performance, on stage or on screen, a method of acting called “in the moment”, is something all actors should follow, in my opinion.

Hamlet then meets his father’s ghost, who tells him that his uncle Claudius murdered him for the throne. This is the moment where he supposedly goes mad. However, it is very clear in this production that he is simply faking it for others to see. Benedict demonstrates his comedic skills in the scene where he dresses up as a toy soldier, strutting wildly across the room, feigning madness in front of Polonius, before succumbing to sadness once he leaves. This is when the famous To Be Or Not To Be soliloquy comes to light. The “Get Thee To a Nunnery” scene was rushed and didn’t linger too much on the extreme harshness of the words.

Benedict’s Hamlet is very easy to root for, despite the many crimes he commits, such his cruelty to his mother Gertrude and Ophelia, and the killing of Polonius, and subsequently driving Ophelia mad.  The profound misogyny demonstrated by Hamlet is somewhat spirited away by his faked madness. This and other confrontational acts are not as physically demonstrated like in many other productions.

Now for the rest of the cast, they all did pretty well. Sian Brooke as Ophelia was the perfect portrayal of a delicate innocence destroyed by the senseless (and unexpected) murder of her father. She shines brilliantly in the second half when she goes mad; she has patches of bald on her head, she cries while singing, and her mental instability is also physical, as she walks with a limp across the stage.

Annastasia Hille as Gertrude was also incredibly amazing, and her speech to Laertes about the accidental (or suicidal) drowning of his sister Ophelia is heart-breaking.

I didn’t get emotional at the action-packed tragic ending, because I knew already what was to come.

Whenever I watch a version of Hamlet, I’m reminded, of course, by The Lion King, which was loosely based on the play. Claudius is Scar, by comparison, though in this play, he is not as evil, regretting his crimes a little.

Another thing I enjoyed the most in this production is the use of slow motion by the actors. When Hamlet delivers a speech during a dinner at the beginning, the rest of the actors carry on slowly in the darkened background.

The set was absolutely beautiful, making use of a chandelier at the beginning and then reducing part of the set in ashes and dust by the second half.

All in all, I was utterly blown away by the play. I had once before seen only Kenneth Branagh’s four-hour cinema version of it, and I must say it fails in comparison to Lyndsey Turner’s shortened and modernised version.  

After the whole cast took their bows, Benedict took a moment to urge the audience to donate money to the Save The Children foundation, to aid the refugee crises. It’s yet another reminder that the actor is completely selfless and wants to use his fame to highlight important and tragic issues going on in the world.  It was an unforgettable experience. Too bad I can only see it once.