BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Go on then...what are your theories?

anjaH_alias · December 30, 2012 3:45 pm

kazza474 wrote:
When trying to 'analyse' what you see on the screen, you have to remember it is ALL fake. So you cannot really get too deep into the 'looks' and 'feels' of anything. It's just an actor playing a part.
This is a frustration that Gatiss had with the fandom.

When Gatiss was frustrated because people were supposing this or that, then it was because they were doing this about fantasized behaviours which were not to be seen on the screen. I think I am doing quite the opposite normally, I am interpreting actions which are there, like here the tears. They are undoubtedly shown, but in the why we all may not agree. When I say that BC is playing very convincing I am talking about the style in which he is doing this. He - like any good actor - is using different acting styles, which can be also found in one figure. Whereas in TGG, in ASiB or in the Blind Banker he is using some acting elements of comedy, of slapstick or farce which show us directly that this is not genuine (the tears, the friendliness, the false smile etc., which Sherlock applys to reach something). We as audience can follow more or less easily with the help of these methods, that Sherlock plays a role. On the rooftop scene therefore he uses a kind of naturalistic, very convincing and moving theatre style. I was working for many years together with actors, had a good insight on how they form a role, how they change their characteristics and so on. And there are some inner rules to that and normally the audience can find a hook which deciphers the pretended faked emotion (when a figure is pretending something in it´s role, of course, not the actor who is somehow always pretending - so the role in the role, a double layer). But during the rooftop tears I can´t find the hook, they are genuinely acted and shown there. There is no role in the role to me. I believe in these inner rules and it would be very disappointing (out of my professionel view, not to my personal feelings), if the tears aren´t at least partially true. BC plays it like that, his Sherlock seems to be genuine in that moment. There is no acting break.
A good example for that "acting break" (I don´t know how this is correctly called in English, don´t find it) is the first meeting of Sherlock and John with Richard Brook at Kitty Riley´s flat. First I wasn´t sure whether all what Moriarty/Brook said isn´t eventually even true - Andrew Scott is playing Richard Brook so convincing that I started to doubt about Moriarty for a short moment. While watching that scene a second or third time I saw then Moriarty glancing to Sherlock through his hands, with a little triumphant smile on his face. THERE was the break, the minimal "fall out of acting" situation, which shows the audience (and Sherlock in this case) that Richard Brook is a big lie: Jim Moriarty is playing Richard Brook and not the other way round. If a figure (again: not the actor) is faking something, the audience must be able to follow that while watching (and if it´s so subtle that it happens after ten times watching). I don´t see this with Sherlock´s tears, but maybe I am routineblinded meanwhile.
I hope I could explain it better now.

kazza474 wrote:
It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

So in my last paragraph - I was distracted, sorry ;).
How it pans out? I can imagine that Sherlock says: "No, my tears were just for convincing you...." in the same way as he denied in ASiP that he was in real danger, that he wasn´t attempted to take the pill. Although most of us plus John think he actually was in danger and John has (at least maybe) saved his life. So it could be that we never will get a 100% enlightment here....

Last edited by anjaH_alias (December 30, 2012 3:54 pm)

kazza474 · December 30, 2012 4:01 pm

anjaH_alias wrote:
When Gatiss was frustrated because people were supposing this or that, then it was because they were doing this about fantasized behaviours which were not to be seen on the screen. ....

No as I said, he was frustrated that people dismissed the suicide of Moriarty simply because there was not enough damage to the head.
He explained 'this is TV you can't show something that graphic'.

As for the rest, I think you are overanalysing things.
We shall wait & see.

anjaH_alias · December 30, 2012 4:17 pm

kazza474 wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:
When Gatiss was frustrated because people were supposing this or that, then it was because they were doing this about fantasized behaviours which were not to be seen on the screen. ....
No as I said, he was frustrated that people dismissed the suicide of Moriarty simply because there was not enough damage to the head.
He explained 'this is TV you can't show something that graphic'.

As for the rest, I think you are overanalysing things.
We shall wait & see.

Funnywise I think at the moment, I am the only one who is not interpreting into far regions ;). I see him crying and I believe him this, no long shots, whys and therefores. I don´t need to analyze this, I did exactly feel so, before I was trying to explain it here.
But, however, I think these discussions are here, because "Sherlock" is designed so well. I am really excited on part 7 - and I will definetely find a way to see it "live" .

Edit: I believe him the tears, but of course I can´t be sure why he is crying. But I never thought, not from the first time I saw this, that the tears are fake.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (December 30, 2012 4:44 pm)

anjaH_alias · January 8, 2013 10:21 pm

anjaH_alias wrote:
The timing of sending John away before (with that fake news about Mrs. Hudson being shot) on the one side and the text of Moriarty (I am waiting) on the other side had been too perfect if there wasn´t somebody outside of St. Barts arranging a lot. John was sent away short before Moriarty appeared - this can´t be coincidence. So, who did manage that? For me it can only be Mycroft.

I have to rethink that: Some evenings ago I read "The Final Problem" since a longer time again (I was more "concentrated" on "The Empty House" to get some hints about what is coming soon - well I say soon ....). To my surprise John is sent away here by Moriarty (fake letter) and Sherlock Holmes realizes immediately that it´s a hoax. Of course this would also explain the good timing in TRF: No coincidence, of course, but arranged from the other side as I supposed.

But even more interesting for me was while reading that story again that I could find more parallels to TRF than I had expected.

- When Holmes and Watson meet in that story, Holmes´ face is white and pale, his nerves are "at their highest tension", Watson: "not the nature" of Sherlock Holmes (= out of character, beginning of TRF, no "game is on"-feeling, SH not being bored; mirror-scene before trial and "looking sad");
- Moriarty as "spider in the web with its thousand radiations" (= TRF "spider in a web with a thousand threads");
- Moriarty visiting Sherlock Holmes (= IOU-scene);
- Sherlock Holmes arranges imprisonment of Moriarty and his collegues, but Moriarty can escape the official civil servants (= trial);
- Holmes and Watson becoming fugitives in Europe "one would think we were the criminals" (= John and Sherlock as fugitives in London);
- hoax letter (= fake call);
- Holmes "This was the organization which I deduced, Watson, and which I devoted my whole energy to exposing and breaking up" / "I have woven my net around them" (= the beginning of TRF with the strange cases);
- Holmes "In over a thousand cases I am not aware that I have ever used my powers upon the wrong side" (= side of the angels)
- a cigarette case left at the Reichenbach Falls with Holmes´ note in it and the hint, that detailed proves against the criminals were already given to Mycroft (= phone call and thrown away mobile phone itself - is there more in it maybe? A recording? Mycroft is somehow in, I am convinced about that, but how much?)
- the good-bye note itself: "... though I fear that it is at a cost which will give pain to my friends, and especially, my dear Watson, to you" (= tears on the rooftop)
- the fall in both stories
and
- finally: "It will be within the memory of the public how completely the evidence which Holmes had accumulated exposed their organization, and how heavily the hand of the dead man weighed upon them." Wow, should have read that before.....

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 8, 2013 10:45 pm)

besleybean · January 9, 2013 6:53 am

I confess as times goes on and series 3 approaches, I find myself over-analysing everything and therein lies the road to insanity!
So I remain confident that Sherlock's fake death will be dealt with swiftly(for the viewer) and be relatively straight forward.
We know Molly and the homeless network have helped and I suspect Mycroft too.
How ep 7 pans out, I'm prepared to wait and see,
Right from the start I've wondered about Sherlock throwing down his phone, tho I'm not sure how much we should read into that.
I have also wondered about the bug/camera discovered at the flat...but again. don't know if these will feature,.
Apparently. John and Mycroft both still think there is a key code, tho I'm not entirely sure this is true for Mycroft.
Also not certain of the importance of the snipers.

Last edited by besleybean (January 9, 2013 6:55 am)

anjaH_alias · January 9, 2013 11:26 am

besleybean wrote:
I confess as times goes on and series 3 approaches, I find myself over-analysing everything and therein lies the road to insanity!
So I remain confident that Sherlock's fake death will be dealt with swiftly(for the viewer) and be relatively straight forward.
We know Molly and the homeless network have helped and I suspect Mycroft too.
How ep 7 pans out, I'm prepared to wait and see,
Right from the start I've wondered about Sherlock throwing down his phone, tho I'm not sure how much we should read into that.
I have also wondered about the bug/camera discovered at the flat...but again. don't know if these will feature,.
Apparently. John and Mycroft both still think there is a key code, tho I'm not entirely sure this is true for Mycroft.
Also not certain of the importance of the snipers.

As far as I am concerned I don´t know the series since a long time - lucky me ;-)). And I was really excited that I found so many parallels in the ACD story. Maybe more a text for the canon thread, but too late now...
Just a question: Why do we know that the homeless network is involved? To me there is no prove of that in TRF or did I oversee something? (I am also assuming that, but I don´t know it for sure!).

BTW: Nearly everybody whom I read or talked about TRF was wondering about the phone. But now I am nearly sure that this is the parallel to ACDs cigarette box with the letter in it, which was left at the place Sherlock Holmes disappeared. So something must be in the phone as well - we will see what hopefully in 2013.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 9, 2013 11:27 am)

Davina · January 9, 2013 12:46 pm

There may not be anything in the phone. Just because the cigarette box had a letter in it it does not follow that the mobile phone must have something in it. The mobile phone call is itself the modern equivalent of the note in the box. Sherlock even says so to John from the roof of St. Bart's.

anjaH_alias · January 9, 2013 1:12 pm

Davina wrote:
There may not be anything in the phone. Just because the cigarette box had a letter in it it does not follow that the mobile phone must have something in it. The mobile phone call is itself the modern equivalent of the note in the box. Sherlock even says so to John from the roof of St. Bart's.

Absolutely possible. That the phone is the equivalent to the note I wrote already two posts before. But there could be more, like in the cigarette case was more.
Somebody must have been later on the rooftop. Moriarty´s dead body was never mentioned in the newspapers. For some reason it had to disappear (if we don´t assume that he was still alive - I don´t think so anyway!). So somebody must have found also the phone which was demonstratively thrown away. So much with ostentation that I read some theories about throwing the phone away was Sherlock´s out-of-character-behaviour (which is somehow funny ;), but shows the accent on it).

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 9, 2013 1:33 pm)

ancientsgate · January 9, 2013 1:12 pm

anjaH_alias wrote:
.....BTW: Nearly everybody whom I read or talked about TRF was wondering about the phone. But now I am nearly sure that this is the parallel to ACDs cigarette box with the letter in it, which was left at the place Sherlock Holmes disappeared. So something must be in the phone as well - we will see what hopefully in 2013.

Ah! What an intriguing idea. Thanks for sharing this with us. I love it, the idea that there might be a "letter" in the phone. To John perhaps?

I'm starting to feel like someone dying of thirst, trekking across a vast wasteland of desert, as we wait for more Sherlock. And we Americans have well over a year to wait to finally reach our oasis.... *sob*

kazza474 · January 9, 2013 1:16 pm

anjaH_alias wrote:
....... Moriarty´s dead body was never mentioned in the newspapers. For some reason it had to disappear (if we don´t assume that he was still alive - I don´t think so anyway!). .....

It should be remembered, we see very little of the newspapers afterwards. There's nothing to suggest that it wasn't found. We just didn't see those stories in the small excerpts shown, so whether his body was hidden or not can only be speculation. Let's fce it, te whole Moriarty/Brook thing would be a huge embarrassment for the authorities AND the press.

anjaH_alias · January 9, 2013 1:22 pm

ancientsgate wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:
.....BTW: Nearly everybody whom I read or talked about TRF was wondering about the phone. But now I am nearly sure that this is the parallel to ACDs cigarette box with the letter in it, which was left at the place Sherlock Holmes disappeared. So something must be in the phone as well - we will see what hopefully in 2013.
Ah! What an intriguing idea. Thanks for sharing this with us. I love it, the idea that there might be a "letter" in the phone. To John perhaps?

That would be nice, or ? But I think for John was the phone call - that´s it. But in that cigarette box-letter of ACD Sherlock Holmes wrote also besides the note, that he has already given a file/proof against Moriarty to his brother Mycroft. So more likely for me is this in parallel - in the phone could be (if at all!) some proves against "our" Moriarty and his web, maybe even a broadcasting of everything happened on the rooftop.... But could be also nothing, like Besleybean said. I am just wondering about the accented throwing-away act, and I was since the first time I watched the episode convinced about that there were some hidden microphones or similar stuff. Sherlock asked so much and played a little bit the doofus...

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 9, 2013 1:38 pm)

anjaH_alias · January 9, 2013 1:27 pm

kazza474 wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:
....... Moriarty´s dead body was never mentioned in the newspapers. For some reason it had to disappear (if we don´t assume that he was still alive - I don´t think so anyway!). .....
It should be remembered, we see very little of the newspapers afterwards. There's nothing to suggest that it wasn't found. We just didn't see those stories in the small excerpts shown, so whether his body was hidden or not can only be speculation. Let's fce it, te whole Moriarty/Brook thing would be a huge embarrassment for the authorities AND the press.

Oh, it was found, I am sure. But who found it and what did he/she do with it?
What do you mean with embarrassment for the authorities/press? Because they had to admit then that they were wrong? But it´s still the "fraudulent detective" in the news, seemingly they still follow their own stories. For some reason Sherlock has to stay the fraud in public, at least for a while.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 9, 2013 1:42 pm)

kazza474 · January 9, 2013 1:42 pm

There was an underlying theme to the show, Moftiss were having a go at the press - how they sensationalise things and disregard actual proof of what they print as 'feature stories'. The Rich Brook story was loaded with holes but they fed it to the public AND the authorities both of whom ate it up without questioning the inconsistencies.
The authorities had just finished the "Trial of the century" with Moriarty, only to have the press announce later that there was no such person. How does that make the Authorites look? They can't pick a fake?

Think through the whole scenario in sequence and then tell me the authorities and the press would be happy & proud of their handiwork.
It's not gonna happen; they would have the sensational "shelock suicide" story but would have buried all other aspects of the case as far away as possible so that people couldn't see how wrong it all was.

Davina · January 9, 2013 1:48 pm

To a degree I see the 'authorities', especially Mycroft, as manipulating The Press for their own reasons.

kazza474 · January 9, 2013 1:51 pm

Davina wrote:
To a degree I see the 'authorities', especially Mycroft, as manipulating The Press for their own reasons.

Which makes them (the press) look like complete idiots in the end; mission complete Moftiss.

anjaH_alias · January 9, 2013 1:54 pm

kazza474 wrote:
There was an underlying theme to the show, Moftiss were having a go at the press - how they sensationalise things and disregard actual proof of what they print as 'feature stories'. The Rich Brook story was loaded with holes but they fed it to the public AND the authorities both of whom ate it up without questioning the inconsistencies.
The authorities had just finished the "Trial of the century" with Moriarty, only to have the press announce later that there was no such person. How does that make the Authorites look? They can't pick a fake?

Think through the whole scenario in sequence and then tell me the authorities and the press would be happy & proud of their handiwork.
It's not gonna happen; they would have the sensational "shelock suicide" story but would have buried all other aspects of the case as far away as possible so that people couldn't see how wrong it all was.

If there was only Daily Mail or Sun I´d agree. But, just in case, they found Brook/Moriarty officially dead on the rooftop, everybody would be interested in that. Also the more serious writers and newspapers. And once a fact is proven the tabloids switch quickly as if they had nothing said before. Kind of common dementia, they don´t care about reliability, I would say.
But it´s right, this is wild guessing now, I just like the idea that Sherlock has to stay a fraud to ease the further undercover investigations (like in The Empty House). And for this probably also Moriarty must be kept alive to some persons.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 9, 2013 1:56 pm)

besleybean · January 9, 2013 5:22 pm

Actually. will Moriarty need to be mentioned at all, whether dead or alive?
Why would he need to be mentioned?
So I suppose you mean, nobody will announce his death, rather than proclaiming him alive!

anjaH_alias · January 9, 2013 7:09 pm

besleybean wrote:
Actually. will Moriarty need to be mentioned at all, whether dead or alive?
Why would he need to be mentioned?
So I suppose you mean, nobody will announce his death, rather than proclaiming him alive!

What I meant was that it could be helpful for the further developments (undercover investigations) if some people think he´s still alive. To make them feel safe, whatever.... This was, what I´ve always suggested, when I saw that nothing was mentioned about him in the newspapers. There´s still Moriarty´s web web which has to get destroyed.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 9, 2013 7:13 pm)

besleybean · January 9, 2013 7:44 pm

Yeah, but the public don't know that!

anjaH_alias · January 9, 2013 10:27 pm

besleybean wrote:
Yeah, but the public don't know that!

The public does know nothing at all. They don´t know anything about rooftops, key codes and so on. They just know what the newspapers say/said. No matter at all, not important for the story.
Important is, what Moriarty´s confidents think. Or better, what they don´t know. I can imagine that it could be very helpful that they don´t know what really happened on the rooftop (suicide of Moriarty). That they think everything went according to the plan, as far as they were informed about that. They just know, the dangerous detektiv is dead AND still said to be fraudulent in the media, boss is not mentioned so there is no reason of doubting about him being alive. Something like that. The public in general is not important.
I mean, it must have a reason, that Moriarty is not mentioned in the last news about Sherlock. I don´t believe in the embarrassment of the tabloids -- they simply don´t care. Today this, tomorrow that. So why hiding that fact then if they were aware about that? What makes sense if it´s not a planful disappeared body for the sake of the further plans of Sherlock and whoever might be involved?

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 9, 2013 10:42 pm)