BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » What Sherlock did...

LightPurple · January 21, 2014 10:50 am

Swanpride wrote:
I am not so sure about it, since the deed is done to conceal an illegal action.

I would agree to that if CAM had just threatened to expose Mary so she would be put behind bars. In that case it would have been CAM's life against Mary's freedom, and life has to be valued higher than freedom, especially given that it would not be unjustisfied to put Mary in jail. But CAM actually threatened Mary's life by pointing out that he knew poeple who would kill her if they knew where and who she was. Because of that, it was her life against his life and the law doesn't value her life less because of what she did in the past. According to the law, putting her in jail would be justified, but killing her? No. In some countries it wold be, of course, but not in Europe.

Last edited by LightPurple (January 21, 2014 10:51 am)

LightPurple · January 21, 2014 12:20 pm

@Swanpride By the way, I'm not saying your arguments are wrong. You're arguing on the side of the prosecuter, I'm arguing on the side of the defender. I'm not sure who would actually "win" or be more convincing in court, but I think we both would have a shot. As so many things in life, the law isn't always just black or white / right or wrong.

Criosdan · January 21, 2014 12:38 pm

In my opinion there is only right and wrong. And that is not always the same by law.

Willow · January 21, 2014 12:47 pm

miriel68 wrote:
LightPurple wrote:

Years ago there was a case of a wife who had been physically and mentally abused by her husband for years. Divorce wasn't an option for her because he threatend to stalk and kill her and would most likely have done it (given the harm he had done to her in the past). So one night she shot him with a gun while he was sleeping. The courts (not a jury in Switzerland, but legally trained people) didn't send her to prison and said that she had acted in a situation of "Notstand". It wasn't self defence, because her husband didn't pose an immediate threat to her while he was sleeping. But in the whole situation he was being a constant threat to her phyical and mental integrity and she just didn't see another way out but to kill him (sorry, it's hard to explain this legal stuff in English).I think the situation in HLV was similar to this case. CAM was not posing an immediate threat to people's lifes, but he did threatten Mary's life by saying that he could anytime call people who would have her killed. Alive he would pose a constant threat to Mary's life, she, John and Sherlock would be puppets in his hands .
Yes, I was thinking about this too: years ago a saw a court drama based on a similar dilemma (wife killing her sadistic husband and eventually verdicted "not guilty" by the jury). Although killing is never something to be taken lightly or pardoned completely, I was surprise to see that some people judged it as a pure and simple "murder" from Sherlock part and seem to think that M. is not posing a serious threat. We can only speculate when S. decided to kill M., based on BC performance (hmmm... couldn't think about more delicious kind of speculation). Actually, I would be very curious to know what was BC own idea about it and whether they discussed it with Moffat, because for sure he has his own concept about the whole thing. I still don't believe he took the decision immediately after having seen (not having seen) the vault: he obviously understood the implications immediately (what a contrast with a poor John), but his face came from a short flick of surprise to realization and then to horror and grief. There is this interesting shot from behind, when we can see that he actually sways on his feet, as if he were to pass out. But when he comes to the terrace a short while after John, his body language seems to suggest that he is resigned to something. To what? Magnussens having won? I prefer to think that he already took his decision and now he is gathering all his courage to do what he has to do and what is - exactly - one of the most difficult decisions he has ever made. (He seems far more desperate and broken than in TRF and gosh, wasn't his torment heartbreaking back then?)

Well, I can't tell you what Benedict Cumberbatch thinks about HLV, but I read an interview of his about his role in 'Twelve Years a Slave'.

The interviewer suggested that BC played the one good man amidst the many evil ones, and BC disagreed; he pointed out that whilst his character was not as obviously horrendous as the other slave owners, he was nevertheless perfectly willing not only to own slaves but also to sell a slave whom he obviously cared for to raise some money, even though he knew that it would be absolutely hellish for the slave. BC suggested that one cannot be good without being prepared to make some personal sacrifices; the slaveowner would have made do without the money if he was genuinely good.

This is very much about taking the consequences of one's own actions; Sherlock kills, but he is prepared to accept the consequences...

January 21, 2014 12:52 pm

This is practically a question about the theory:
The end justifies the means.

Sherlock himself was not in danger. He acted on behalf of others. He sacrificed his life and career.
He acted as if he thought himself the judge and jury.
That what terrorists do when they think they need to change the way the society works. We had this kind of discussion when we talked about Star Trek- Into Darkness. Have a look.

LightPurple · January 21, 2014 12:58 pm

Criosdan wrote:
In my opinion there is only right and wrong.

I really wish this was true, life and my job in particular would be so much easier if it was But on the other hand, also much more boring . . .

Criosdan · January 21, 2014 1:09 pm

LightPurple: It would be if everyone would know and respect it. But that won't be because humans are human. Not even every law is just.
There's another great quote from Terry Pratchett which comes into my mind right now:
~~Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things.”

Last edited by Criosdan (January 21, 2014 1:09 pm)

January 21, 2014 1:34 pm

LightPurple wrote:
Criosdan wrote:
In my opinion there is only right and wrong.

I really wish this was true, life and my job in particular would be so much easier if it was But on the other hand, also much more boring . . .

There is no such thing as right and wrong in an absolute sense. There is always a shade of grey between black and white. Or pink if you fancy that.
Something is right today and might be wrong tomorrow under other circumstances. Something is right for you but wrong for me. Rules change in changing times. Everything is a matter of perspective, distance and how you percieve things, how you are brought up, what experiences you made in your life.
IMO, you need to make your choice in life and be respectful towards others and you still can get it wrong or change your mind and look at your decisions in retrospect. You need to forgive yourself and others. Judgements are easy about what is right and wrong. The canon stories are perfect examples of crimes or not-crimes and the background story Holmes deduced about how and why people did what they did.
His Last Vow gives us the chance to really look...

lil · January 21, 2014 1:35 pm

I think Sherlock knows it is murder, and I think he also knows and is prepared to accept the personal cost of his actions. But he also as we see here for many reasons has a brilliant defence. So maybe he deserves the light sentance in the end.

Something to consider tho .. the people who gave Magnusson his power, and the people that aided Moriarty to force Sherlock onto the roof, well it was us wasn't it?

The public , the baying crowd , the people buying the newspapers and pointing fingers and making moral judgements...well thats all on us isn't it?
We as a society are all accomplices in this murder.

A well made point on society I think...don't be so quick to judge people by what you read in the papers@see on the news...and maybe don't even buy papers...don't give them that wealth or power.

Because ultimately it has consequences for someone.

Remember the poster outside the drugs den...information is free.

Last edited by lil (January 21, 2014 1:42 pm)

Willow · January 21, 2014 2:29 pm

lil wrote:
I think Sherlock knows it is murder, and I think he also knows and is prepared to accept the personal cost of his actions. But he also as we see here for many reasons has a brilliant defence. So maybe he deserves the light sentance in the end.

Something to consider tho .. the people who gave Magnusson his power, and the people that aided Moriarty to force Sherlock onto the roof, well it was us wasn't it?

The public , the baying crowd , the people buying the newspapers and pointing fingers and making moral judgements...well thats all on us isn't it?
We as a society are all accomplices in this murder.

A well made point on society I think...don't be so quick to judge people by what you read in the papers@see on the news...and maybe don't even buy papers...don't give them that wealth or power.

Because ultimately it has consequences for someone.

Remember the poster outside the drugs den...information is free.

Both CAM and Moriarty are people who have learned how to manipulate the world around them, in almost the worst possible way; as Stanley Baldwin put it back in 1931:

'What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot through the ages.'

Baldwin was attacking Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere, the two great Press barons of his day; the abuse of that power is not a new thing. CAM is a Press baron and Moriarty is someone who has extensive contacts in the tabloid press.

Responsibility is one of the great themes of HLV; who takes it and who declines it. The episode starts with Lady Smallwood going to Sherlock because he is the one person who might be prepared to take on CAM; no one else dares to do so. It ends with Sherlock reprieved only because another monster has appeared, or reappeared, and Sherlock is the guy who will take on monsters that no-one else will touch, and then pay the price.

The difficulty, the horrendous difficulty, coming up in Season 4 as inevitably as the Reichenbach Falls, is that Mary declines responsibility for her actions; she is all about power without responsibility. And I cannot see her changing; that blazing red coat when everyone around her is dressed in funereal tones, which you noted in another post, is a demonstration of ego. It's all about her...

January 21, 2014 2:42 pm

Nicely said, Willow.
He accepted responsibility for actions that were not his. Because John wanted to stay oblivious?

sj4iy · January 21, 2014 2:53 pm

Willow wrote:
lil wrote:
I think Sherlock knows it is murder, and I think he also knows and is prepared to accept the personal cost of his actions. But he also as we see here for many reasons has a brilliant defence. So maybe he deserves the light sentance in the end.

Something to consider tho .. the people who gave Magnusson his power, and the people that aided Moriarty to force Sherlock onto the roof, well it was us wasn't it?

The public , the baying crowd , the people buying the newspapers and pointing fingers and making moral judgements...well thats all on us isn't it?
We as a society are all accomplices in this murder.

A well made point on society I think...don't be so quick to judge people by what you read in the papers@see on the news...and maybe don't even buy papers...don't give them that wealth or power.

Because ultimately it has consequences for someone.

Remember the poster outside the drugs den...information is free.
Both CAM and Moriarty are people who have learned how to manipulate the world around them, in almost the worst possible way; as Stanley Baldwin put it back in 1931:

'What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility — the prerogative of the harlot through the ages.'

Baldwin was attacking Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere, the two great Press barons of his day; the abuse of that power is not a new thing. CAM is a Press baron and Moriarty is someone who has extensive contacts in the tabloid press.

Responsibility is one of the great themes of HLV; who takes it and who declines it. The episode starts with Lady Smallwood going to Sherlock because he is the one person who might be prepared to take on CAM; no one else dares to do so. It ends with Sherlock reprieved only because another monster has appeared, or reappeared, and Sherlock is the guy who will take on monsters that no-one else will touch, and then pay the price.

The difficulty, the horrendous difficulty, coming up in Season 4 as inevitably as the Reichenbach Falls, is that Mary declines responsibility for her actions; she is all about power without responsibility. And I cannot see her changing; that blazing red coat when everyone around her is dressed in funereal tones, which you noted in another post, is a demonstration of ego. It's all about her...

Where does her coat come into this? I seriously have no idea.

lil · January 21, 2014 3:10 pm

Exactly so willow.
Brave of Mofftiss to take up Balwins cause and kudos to them...
I notice the tabloids here have been quite angry about it..running leftwing bbc blah stories and comparing Magnusson to other well known press barons..beginning with M. Heh.

silverblaze · January 21, 2014 3:22 pm

sj4iy wrote:
Where does her coat come into this? I seriously have no idea.

Sometimes a coat is just a coat.

I really think it's a coincidence with the colours, doesn't have deeper meaning, the red coat is what she wears in TEH too.

miriel68 · January 21, 2014 3:47 pm

Be wrote:
Nicely said, Willow.
He accepted responsibility for actions that were not his. Because John wanted to stay oblivious?

Ok, as much as I agree he did it for John, there was also an element of HIS responsability in the whole situation. He made a pact with a devil, because he wanted to retrieve compromising materials about Mary, but also because he wanted finally to bring Magnussen down and arrested. Only his plan misfired badly and as a result the situation precipitated: he put Mary and John in immediate danger (John also in a risk of going to prison) and also handed to Magnussen Mycroft on the silver plate. In short, as Magnussen states it: he made an enormous mistake which will destroy the lives of everybody he loves.

Willow · January 21, 2014 4:04 pm

silverblaze wrote:
sj4iy wrote:
Where does her coat come into this? I seriously have no idea.
Sometimes a coat is just a coat.

I really think it's a coincidence with the colours, doesn't have deeper meaning, the red coat is what she wears in TEH too.

Quite so, and sometimes a cigar is only a cigar; however, the scene you are referring to in TEH is where we discover that John has been kidnapped and it's our first exposure to Mary's secrets. She knows what a skip code is; no normal person does. Red is the colour of anger, of danger and of blood, all of which Mary has in abundance. It is not an accidental choice by the designer.

The blaring red coat certainly has other uses; it makes the visuals of the motorbike ride more dramatic, but any bright colour would have worked for that.

One of the odd things about its use in the final scene of HLV is that the original coat theoretically wouldn't fit a woman in the advanced stages of pregnancy; they certainly could have afforded to buy the character a new coat. But I think it is a deliberate choice, taking us back to when we first learned that Mary is not what she seems, and reminding us that she is profoundly dangerous...

Willow · January 21, 2014 4:28 pm

miriel68 wrote:
Be wrote:
Nicely said, Willow.
He accepted responsibility for actions that were not his. Because John wanted to stay oblivious?
Ok, as much as I agree he did it for John, there was also an element of HIS responsability in the whole situation. He made a pact with a devil, because he wanted to retrieve compromising materials about Mary, but also because he wanted finally to bring Magnussen down and arrested. Only his plan misfired badly and as a result the situation precipitated: he put Mary and John in immediate danger (John also in a risk of going to prison) and also handed to Magnussen Mycroft on the silver plate. In short, as Magnussen states it: he made an enormous mistake which will destroy the lives of everybody he loves.

Oh, I certainly accept that Sherlock was responsible for his own actions, and I do not believe that he was acting solely for John; if you recall the plan was set up while Sherlock was still in hospital and his client, Lady Smallwood, was still hoping that Sherlock could save the day. People seem to forget that Lady Smallwood was Sherlock's client; the director went to a lot of trouble to remind us of that, with Sherlock holding the newspaper article about her husband's suicide on Xmas Day before he left for Appledore.

I think it fair to say that the plan worked out as one would expect, given that it was formulated by someone recovering from a near fatal injury ie. it was a disaster. It was only Sherlock's willingness to kill, and to die himself, which stopped the destruction of everyone, and everything, which he holds dear...

silverblaze · January 21, 2014 4:48 pm

Willow wrote:
Red is the colour of anger, of danger and of blood, all of which Mary has in abundance. It is not an accidental choice by the designer.

Mmm, possibly, but I think you're seeing patterns in random stimuli. They never use costume colour in this symbolic way, and if they did, red could mean anything, it als refers to love, life, and blood connection, probably some other things too. It's possible, but I think the designer just found a nice coat that looked good on Mary.

Maybe Lady Smallwood's husband's death made it a little easier for Sherlock to pull the trigger.

Willow · January 21, 2014 5:07 pm

silverblaze wrote:
Willow wrote:
Red is the colour of anger, of danger and of blood, all of which Mary has in abundance. It is not an accidental choice by the designer.
Mmm, possibly, but I think you're seeing patterns in random stimuli. They never use costume colour in this symbolic way, and if they did, red could mean anything, it als refers to love, life, and blood connection, probably some other things too. It's possible, but I think the designer just found a nice coat that looked good on Mary.

Maybe Lady Smallwood's husband's death made it a little easier for Sherlock to pull the trigger.

Actually, they do use colour symbolically; back in the dim and distant past I studied theatre arts, which includes costuming. I appreciate that people who haven't studied it are unlikely to realise that they are being intentionally manipulated by the designers, but the designers are manipulating them all the same. And red, in our culture, spells danger; that's why traffic lights look the way they do.

I agree that the death of his client's husband may well have made it a little easier to pull the trigger; CAM may not pay people to kill people but he is perfectly happy to drive someone to commit suicide. And of course, Sherlock had saved his life when he departed from the ACD canon story and intervened, thinking that it was Lady Smallwood in CAM's office, and nearly died as a result. There are a lot of layers...

lil · January 21, 2014 5:10 pm

I think the production team and costumers do put some thought into what they pick. Like Johns jacket in the pilot is swapped out for a shooting jacket in ep 1 , as the ending changed , so did the clothes. Also Mary's thumbs up thumbs down T shirt moment in this episode.Good article on it in GQ some time ago..
So for some reason they decided red suited Mary..why is distupable and maybe a bit over analytical and deffo... off topic. So lol yeah...costume thread .

Last edited by lil (January 21, 2014 5:11 pm)