Janyss

I really think the scene when he remembers his childhood and the decisions he had to make explains the "blood on the hands" line. He becomes a very different man after this. However, he's not depicted as a coward: he wants Sherlock to shoot him instead of John (I definitely love the scene too), then he faces his parents (he could have gone on lying). It is still very nuanced and complexe.

All that is very interesting, and as I don't know how to do with quotation, I hope I won't be too general. I'd say the writers first wanted to show us a Mycroft who would have to face the actual consequences of his decisions, and the reality it is to implement them. As he has always believed to act for the greater good, I think the line about blood on the hands means he absolutely doesn't want to spread the blood of an innocent man (and that is also why John can't kill the governor in the end). Mycroft has already faced violent deaths, with MAry for eg, without any specific reaction (and so has John). He's still very cold abouth Mary's death in his first conversation with lady Smallwood in TLD. The thing is about killing an innocent (everyone aknowledged the governor's been "enslaved" by Euros and thus didn't act upon his free will). Anyway, Mycroft is certainly not depicted as an angel, but as a politician who sometimes "eats with the devil", as we say in French. About Mummy Holmes -her line broke my heart, oh, my God, even if I consider her situation when learning about her presumed dead daughter: very often, people taking responsibilities try to do their best and can't get any aknowledgement or rewards from this. Much is expected from elder brothers and sisters, moreover. That is, I think, what Sherlock realises when he asks Lestrade to make sure someone takes care of Mycroft. With all the bad decisions, all the lies (practically until the end of the episode, with Victor's story) from Mycroft, he begins feeling himself less dummy, and in the same time he understand Mycroft's dilemmas (which is obvious with their parents). That is also why Lestrade says "he's a good man".

"Recruit" exists in French ("recruter"), but I'd bet the translators may have done the same interpretation as I did. I'll ask other French fans if they felt the same.

Yes, they've been. With DVDs I could watch in English but "flesh is weak", and I often turn to French version. I've watched a few of my favourite scènes in English anyway. I'd say French version is good, but like in all translations, it brings something different (if you go into détails, of course, the story, the main cult lines are the same, for eg Anderson asked to shut up as the IQ of the street has to be protected :) !): I think Mycroft and Sherlock's relation is very tense in French, more than in English. Mycroft's intonations are more acerbic, and Sherlock's are more resentful. It's brought both by choice of words and intonations. Moreover, may be we get different meanings: some French words are part of things that brought me to my assertion that Euros embodies indoctrination. In the scene with the governor of Sherringford, the French version uses "she converts people to her cause" ("elle convertit les gens à sa cause") AND "she enslaves them" (elle les asservit"). I'll have to rewatch (yeah!) but I think in English we only have "enslave". Edit: done. We also have two verbs in English ("recruit" and "enslave"), but "recruit" may refer less to ideological or religious indoctrination than "convert"

I wouldn't myself, for sure in normal conditions. If my children were hungry, and nothing else available, however... Well, I've also been surprised because in "The six Thatchers", Mycroft faces Mary's agony and death very coldly, and goes back to a normal life (or what you can call so for Mycroft), entering home, leaving his files down, relaxing a little, looking for something to eat then getting desperate in front of the empty fridge and giving the ordinary (or what we can think to be) phone calls...Just like you and me coming back from office! I have loved Mycroft since the pilot (or to be fair: when I first saw him with John I was upset, thinking he was a very bad Moriarty, but the last scene was a relief!), but he is wonderful in this TFP. There is a complete change -may be more than a contradiction, then, you would be right- between ep. 2 and ep.3: "Mr Iceman" has been erased by the coming back of memories (the scene between Sherlock's flat and Musgrave is full of poetry) and the conséquences of his collaboration with evil -he's not so sure now it was for a good cause! In the same moments, he is ready to bear the weight of his actions, which is obvious in the scene when Sherlock has to choose to kill him or John: he's ready to sacrify his life, but also, with his words, John and Sherlock's esteem, and may be his soul (it is not mentionned in the series if he believes in any God or risk of damnation after death). The character has been interesting since the beginning, with the mix of John Steed-like and Shakespearian sides, but this episode gives him even more complexity.

Arcadia, I really have the feeling that the French version conveys a very tense and incisive Sherlock, specifically with Mycroft. But even here in France we can see that the series is also about making the two brothers by blood closer, even if Sherlock is reluctant in front of Mycroft's compromissions with evil, should they be for the family's or the country's greater good.

I'd say there is a contradiction when Mycroft has to face the reality of death, of killing someone. I was a little surprised by his reaction, because after all he must have asked people to kill for him. Of course the reality is something else, but I think he pays the weight of the lies he had to develop all along his life, and he begins realizing the conséquences of asking help from Euros against terrorism. Your sight on Chamberlain's policy is very interesting for me. I don't know many things about the man himself. I couldn't say if he was obsessed by keeping power or if he really cared about prople and really didn't want them to have a new war, and thus was blind. But I think that Churchill's judgement on him, with its strength and visionnary force (and of course the fact that we know what happened next), leads us to erase the background of the pre-war years. Of course Western governments should have realized the danger and were short-sighted, but was it really so easy? Anyway, during the next holidays (one week yet and here we go, yup!) I think I'll try to read a little more about this time of appeasement. However, I'm quite sure the writers have thought of a "geopolitical" meaning of their Euros, at least for recent terrorism. I read today that Mark Gatiss was very interested in politics, history, .. as you said, the events of the moment certainly have an influence on the way we understand each story, but I think our time really needed a rational and scientist hero as Sherlock. Partly a reason of the success, I'd say.

Very interesting question, because as Moriarty said: "every fairy tale needs his devil"... Moriarty himself is a good competitor to the prize. I found Smith boring and CAM was good. But I was completely caught in Euros as an incarnation of pure evil, for the reasons I have developed in last ep topic. It is an evil you can easily be caught in, questioning rationality of modern societies. And that also fits with ACD Sherlock.

This reminds me of the phone conversation between Sherlock and Mycroft during John's wedding celebration. Big brother is obviously trying to build (or rebuild) links with his brother by blood, now that Sherlock's brother by choice gets married. Mycroft sounds quite sure he'll be closer to Sherlock in this talk. OK, when you know season 4 story you also understand this in an other way (Mycroft needs to keep a control on his brother's memories), but I'm sure he just would like to improve the relationship. And of course, it turns that he's thrown away by Sherlock...

Well, I must admit I've seen this one after number 3. So...I thus particularly enjoyed Mycroft's face when, during the interview with the commission, Sherlock wonders about what Moriarty had in mind. This interview. Pure happiness. Mycroft and Sherlock in argument. Lady S. having to deal with WHOLE (so it seems) Holmes family. Mary's past and death: wasn't unexpected, sad, with devastating consequences.Yeah, good. As good as the season finale.

I've watched the 1, 2 and 3 of s4. Deserves rewatch (of course!), but I think 2 is the one I enjoyed less. Very dark, I just followed it because of Euros and Mycroft (oh, the lady has a crush on him, hasn't she -well, sure it reminds me of someone I know very well, but who's that...-? You have to earn being forgiven, dear M, or so it seems. The scene is really multiple meaning: Did he begin his redemption in his office, and was lady S. trying to "formalize" it then, or didn't she get what she wanted yet? Unfortunately we don't get more information about the "we have known each other for long" previous ep, do we? May be something for a fifth season...And for the moment we have to see Big brother getting stuck in his lies, a heavier and heavier burden...). Well, the rest of the stuff was good,/-except Irène Adler popping up- but not really surprising.

Thanks for the video, J.P., and I'll also have a glimpse on the article tomorrow. OMG, I remember why I love English language! Of course oral French language, with some actors, also often takes me, but MG's speech is a pleasure to hear!

Easier sais than done, but that would be an idea! Thanks. I've been through the topic about this episode, and many people wrote they didn't like it owing to the contradictions in Mycroft's reactions. If you consider an overwhelming guilt in the character's mind, it seems clearer and less contradictory. And the heaviest guilt I know about that has been charged on a British politician is Chamberlain's in front of the spread of absolute evil. Edit after rewatching: yeah, during the first meeting between the governor, John and Mycroft (before John discovers the governor is a danger too), the word used to describe Euros' way of actions on people is "enslaving": There is a parallel between the methods of radical political movements and Euros' way of controling people all along this dialogue.

Crowded line, I assume :)! I take it this meeting was a great moment. What was MG's reaction to the mod's words? Did he mention other viewpoints about that character he completely -or not far from that-CREATED?

Boton, I'm looking forwards to reading your fanfics. I totally understand your needing time to write: I have written a few fics for "Person of interest" and I know when you have in mind you just want to write it right now! And about Mycroft and the lady...mm, sounds interesting! Artémis, agree. But sometimes you don't like people who put you in front of the fact that some decisions are heavy. And very often, even if you do your best, you don't get any reward or aknowledgement. That is obviously what happened in the Holmes family for me, that is the meaning of mummy Holmes' line. I imagine Mycroft had a heavy childhood. Poor Mycroft. Sure you need a conversation about literature and British history (with a hug). I volunteer. Interrogation room right now.

Many people with brothers and sisters would aknowledge that despite caring sometimes they act the wrong way with them...Mycroft is nor the perfect elder brother neither the worse. About my comparaison with Chamberlain, I wouldn't like it to upset British citizens, or other persons caring about British history. Here in France we have our own memories issues about the war time and its weak politiciens. Besides, we needed the work by Robert Paxton, an American historian, to face the reality that all French people were not resistents,far from that. Thus please don't think I'm in a moral judgement here, I wouldn't allow myself such a thing.

Well, as much as I love this Mycroft, I must admit it's easy to hate him. If you consider that fiction works, with heroes, gives us a sight on good and evil, clearly Mycroft is not on "the side of angels", and if we just think of what he really DID...Oh, my God: tried to manipulate a mastermind criminal, abduct people, enjailed them, etc...He puts us in front of a question: what about the moral values in front of problems you sometimes have to face? Easy to hate him for that!

Even if I'm completly caught in Mycroft's character, in his relation with Sherlock, in the way MG plays all his sides, I have to admit he has dark sides (and to be fair, I also love him BECAUSE OF his dark sides, deeds, and the way he has to live with them). We can't but aknowledge he tries to make treaties with the various sides of the absolute evil, Euros of course, but also Moriarty or MAgnussen. But (at least in Euros and Moriarty's case) he does it with a knife under the throat (that's a French expression, I don't know if it exists in English, but even with word-to-word translation, seems clear), wanting to avoid people suffering in the end. Neville Chamberlain exactly did the same (of course probably with thought for his political career and hate towards communism, and we know today that he was wrong, but we have to think of what his time was): he wanted to prevent a crush like WWI had been, hoped he would be the saviour of peace, thus underestimated Hitler's danger and tried to deal with him. But may be the judgement on Chamberlain is more severe than mine in English-speaking world opinion, and that would be why a comparison with Mycroft could upset some people.

OMG OF COURSE I meant the end of the episode or season and not the end of the show! It HAS to go on! In ACD's novels and short stories, I think there are about 30 years between "A study in scarlet" and "his last bow". Besides, I have just begun chatting here and don't want to stop it! Indeed I would be very interested to know if the writers saw the story of Euros the way I see it. As such good writers I guess they cope with the idea of various interpretations. But they are highly connected to British culture and history: I'd bet they know an indoctrined Euros and a Chamberlain-like Mycroft is a possible meaning of their story, even if it is not the main one they worked for. May be I'll try to find someone to ask to, in BBC staff. Do you know if the Moftiss or their staff often answer the fan theories when asked?

Thanks for the avatar, Carol. It is not my creation, but I found it on the internet. I had other choices, but the files were too heavy. I like this one with a very human and quite optimistic Mycroft. I had seen a few scenes of this finale episode last spring, but in a whole only yesterday. I'm now with the idea that its story could be a good metaphore about how we try to control terror when it threatens our so-called modern world and our rationnality. Would you agree in my take that Euros can symbolize recent and past ideologies of terror that we thought we had enjailed and that we have to face again? Thus Sherlock, John and Mycroft would depict, each one in his way, the reactions people have had, let's say in front of the rise of nazism, or have nowadays about radical islamic movements. As the hero, Sherlock of course embodies the fight with rationalism and genuine values of modernity (including a part of humanity and feelings), John also goes quite this way in a will of resistence, and Mycroft represents the acts of short-sighted governments in front of the dangers (I thought of the 30's British policy of appeasement towards Hitler, when Chamberlain thought he could save peace with more and more concessions to Hitler, and we could think about the blind of Western governments about the rise of extremist ideologies in the Middle East). To go on with the metaphore, I can say that so as to do his job, Mycroft tries to manipulate Euros the way Western countries have tried to use nazism and later islamism for their interests, believing all would always be under control. Of course it doesn't work, nor for Mycroft neither for Western powers, and the disaster follows. The episode is a perfect depiction of these dangers and the resistence we must develop in front of them. Well anyway, the crew has conveyed many things in this ending, and I guess there is a multitude of possible interpretations of this story.

I went a little through John's topic (and surprisely what a fun with "gay-tiss"!). I love this Dr Watson, too. I think I won't add anything very original, but starting with the idea of a character missing the war so as to explain why a modern young man would match with Sherlock is so brilliant! And the portraying of the " ordinary man", who catches our identification, relies both on the actor playing surprise, being fed up, surprise again...and on the writers' work. Besides, he is much more complexe than this ordinary man. What a blast compared to the transparent narrator in Conan Doyle's work!

I think I see your point, Carol ! After the last episode, I have the temptation of drawing a parallel between Mycroft and (despite my crush on the character) Neville Chamberlain, the British PM just before WW2. He was widely blind in front the dangers of his time, made bad decisions as he didn't want a new war and wanted to comfort people, to prevent them from worrying and suffering -just like Mycroft did about Euros, Sherlock and their parents-, but the stake was so heavy. I wouldn't have liked bearing the weight of Chamberlain and Mycroft's decisions with their conséquences. The overwhelming weight may be an explanation for Mycroft's behaviour sometimes (asserting he doesn't want blood on his hands while obviously he has rivers of it on them at the moment of this line).

There could be many trails to follow for new épisodes...Don't you think the guy who introduced John to Sherlock deserves a story on his own? What about our story if not this encounter? The "fake" movie, if so, takes it all, of course. I think that with it the writers had fun on the fans watching and rewatching the episodes, the scenes, the lines...too, with it. Anyway, they can make their own "Casablanca"!

OMG couldn't resist watching this one even if I haven't seen the previous three! Frightening! First of all, any idea someone about the movie watched by Mycroft in the beginning? I thought it could be a fake, made on purpose for the episode The home reminded me of the place Emma Peel is jailed by a psychopath and has to cross many rooms with ordeals each time ("the joker", I think). The events in Sherringford Island also remind me of these stories in which you are alone or with a few persons, and having to face big, big problems (I have forgotten the English title of Agatha Christie's "Dix petits nègres"). To my mind the problem with the episode is that you have to accept entering a game, and begin everything with a "what if...?" ("what if 5 minutes is really enough to plan this, what if some techniques of controling one's memories this way really exist"...). Then you can enjoy the situations, the moral dilemmas, the characters' behaviours, the questions about guilt...and of course the actors, the set, the emotion. Watson is so supportive, Sherlock goes from determination to despair, and Mycroft faces the fragility of the power he believed he had. Oh, I really believed he wanted to escape the situation when asking for John's sacrifice! I was very surprised and then, ooof (if one can say so), it was just an attempt to ease Sherlock's work! Well done! Of course I was torn when Sherlock asks Lestrade to be careful about his elder brother, and by the end of the episode (end of the program? Noooooo, please, don't! We want all of them back, don't we?).

Hikari, "Gemma Bovery" reminds me of something, but I couldn't see it. Nice to read from you about Fabrice Luchini, many people love him! Not so much iconic as Gérard Depardieu, but so good! Fabrice would be a good Victorian Sherlock Holmes!