Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[Carol the Dabbler]

Please forgive me if the following was covered while I was still avoiding this thread.  We just re-watched TFP today, and I have one comment and one question:

 

At the beginning, when Mycroft is being terrorized in his own home, I noticed (for the first time) that he is forced (by an unexpectedly locked door) to take the route that leads him past his umbrella stand.  This allows him to be frustrated twice, once when the clown draws an even longer sword, and again when his gun turns out to be empty.

 

Come to think of it, make that TWO questions.  Why is there an umbrella stand upstairs?  Does the roof leak?  Or is it a strictly ornamental umbrella stand with an old souvenir umbrella -- and if so why does he expect the gun to be loaded?

 

When Mycroft points out that he would be the better choice to help Sherlock, so John should be the one sacrificed, John says "Shit.  He's right."  As far as I'm aware, it is still forbidden to say "shit" on American broadcast channels such as PBS.  Does anyone still have the PBS broadcast on their DVR, or happen to recall what John said there?  Did they simply omit the second that it took him to say "shit," or did they film that scene twice (or dub that line) so that John said something else?  (Do British people normally use "shoot" as a euphemism?)

[Artemis]

When Mycroft points out that he would be the better choice to help Sherlock, so John should be the one sacrificed, John says "Shit.  He's right."  As far as I'm aware, it is still forbidden to say "shit" on American broadcast channels such as PBS.  Does anyone still have the PBS broadcast on their DVR, or happen to recall what John said there?  Did they simply omit the second that it took him to say "shit," or did they film that scene twice (or dub that line) so that John said something else?  (Do British people normally use "shoot" as a euphemism?)

 

When I watched it on PBS, they just silenced the word.  So we saw his mouth moving, but no sound.  (It's fast though, and his mouth only barely moves when he says it, so I didn't even notice the first time.)  I recall the same in TLD, when Sherlock said he'd been "off his tits", and when John called him and "utter, utter cock", and when John said "It is what it is.  And what it is, is shit."

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

I was thinking... Before Sherlock went to confront Moriarty, he and Mycroft went through every possible scenario and devised at least 13 plans of action. So I find it hard to believe they went to Sherrinford totally unprepared. Did they expect any of what happened there? Did either of them anticipate that Eurus was going to make Sherlock choose between killing either Mycroft or John? Cause I know Mycroft is a cool customer but he doesn't strike me as really expecting to die in that situation. Maybe it was just a little show the Holmes brothers put on, knowing that their sister wouldn't allow Sherlock to shoot himself anyway?

[Arcadia]

Please forgive me if the following was covered while I was still avoiding this thread.  We just re-watched TFP today, and I have one comment and one question:

 

At the beginning, when Mycroft is being terrorized in his own home, I noticed (for the first time) that he is forced (by an unexpectedly locked door) to take the route that leads him past his umbrella stand.  This allows him to be frustrated twice, once when the clown draws an even longer sword, and again when his gun turns out to be empty.

 

Come to think of it, make that TWO questions.  Why is there an umbrella stand upstairs?  Does the roof leak?  Or is it a strictly ornamental umbrella stand with an old souvenir umbrella -- and if so why does he expect the gun to be loaded?

 

When Mycroft points out that he would be the better choice to help Sherlock, so John should be the one sacrificed, John says "Shit.  He's right."  As far as I'm aware, it is still forbidden to say "shit" on American broadcast channels such as PBS.  Does anyone still have the PBS broadcast on their DVR, or happen to recall what John said there?  Did they simply omit the second that it took him to say "shit," or did they film that scene twice (or dub that line) so that John said something else?  (Do British people normally use "shoot" as a euphemism?)

 

Maybe he keeps an umbrella upstairs for just that reason ... in case he needs to defend himself from an intruder? So yeah, he'd keep it loaded. (And I just realized how silly that sounds ... a "loaded umbrella." :D)

 

He may have several stashed around the house for that matter. It's not likely a "normal" intruder would suspect it, after all.

 

Re: the swear words, yep, what Artemis said.

 

I was thinking... Before Sherlock went to confront Moriarty, he and Mycroft went through every possible scenario and devised at least 13 plans of action. So I find it hard to believe they went to Sherrinford totally unprepared. Did they expect any of what happened there? Did either of them anticipate that Eurus was going to make Sherlock choose between killing either Mycroft or John? Cause I know Mycroft is a cool customer but he doesn't strike me as really expecting to die in that situation. Maybe it was just a little show the Holmes brothers put on, knowing that their sister wouldn't allow Sherlock to shoot himself anyway?

 

I got the impression that Mycroft didn't expect to find that Eurus was in control; just that there was a gap in their security that she had somehow exploited. I imagined that she'd been in charge for awhile but Mycroft didn't notice because everything seemed to be going the same as it had before.

 

It didn't make sense to me that he sent Sherlock in to confront her alone ... if he was so certain she could easily brainwash anyone, why expose Sherlock to her? But I rationalize it by thinking he respects Sherlock enough to believe he can withstand her manipulations. But for a few minutes there, I thought that's where they were going with it; she was going to convert Sherlock to her side. Or he would be pretending that she had. I'm glad I was wrong.

 

Still, they do seem to have settled on an extremely reckless plan, don't they? No backup, for one thing. Although they tried to explain that away by stating they didn't know who the security breach was, so I suppose you could argue they couldn't trust anyone but themselves.

 

At any rate, I don't think they expected to find themselves in the situation they ended up in. For one thing, it wasn't very rational, was it? Who would expect it? I think it would be hard to predict what an insane person will do. I did think though, that after the gun appeared that it was obvious choosing between John or Mycroft would be the end game; in fact, Eurus almost says so:

 

EURUS: This is an experiment. There will be rigour. Sherlock, pick up the gun. It’s your turn next. When I tell you to use it – and I will – remember what happened this time.

SHERLOCK: What if I don’t want a gun?

EURUS: Oh, the gun is intended as a mercy.

SHERLOCK: For whom?

EURUS: You.

SHERLOCK: How so?

EURUS: If someone else had to die, would you really want to do it with your bare hands? It would waste valuable time.

https://arianedevere.dreamwidth.org/64663.html

 

​What was really surprising to me was that Eurus didn't anticipate that Sherlock would turn the gun on himself, to me that that was the obvious solution. But maybe she did, and her panicked cries for him to stop were all part of her game. Hard to say.

[J.P.]

Listening to the TFP review at Bakerstreetbabes

http://bakerstreetbabes.com/reviews/sherlock-review-the-final-problem/

 

Apart from the very fine worded intro, they pointed out something that I've overseen or ignored: Sherlock is claiming to be a sociopath and wants to be pure calculating machine, but with Eurus he's shown what he actually was aiming for. During their first encounter the non existing glass is in fact a non existing mirror. And Sherlock's "ideal self" grabs him from this mirror and hits him hard. It's like "is this really what you want to be?"

 

PS: I remember someone's line about looking at the mirror and wanting to see someone else, but cannot recall who and when said that.

[Arcadia]

I have to admit, that's what I thought all along ... Eurus is what Sherlock would have been if he had managed to "cure" himself of emotions. I rather like that about the story, too.

 

That was the scariest moment in the episode, for me, when she attacked him. I jumped. :D

[J.P.]

Yeah, it was also mentioned before, but it didn't really get to me, until they pointed out the clear visual reference. Also the fact that he wanted to be a monster.

[Arcadia]

You'd think he be smart enough to realize that's what it would lead to without having to see the result in someone else, wouldn't you?

 

I always chafed at Moffat calling Sherlock "a bad man", but after TFP, I see where he was going with it. Not that Sherlock was a bad man, exactly, but he chose to shut off the side of himself that would have made him a better one.

 

Over in the Molly thread I was wondering why Eurus decided to torment Sherlock in the way she did. It's almost like she wanted him to make him feel something in hopes that he would take pity on her. But why would she care? My other thought is that she wanted to get back at him for ignoring her as a child; but again, why would she care? If she truly doesn't have or doesn't understand feelings ... agggh, everytime I start thinking about it I get confused.

 

The story I would like is that she was trying to destroy him by making him lose control of his emotions so he'd do something he couldn't live with ... but he turned the tables on her by showing her kindness instead. But I'm not sure that's the story that was being told.

[SanaB]

I think that she maybe doesn't understand feelings the way we can but she surely has an impression about her inner needs. Human beings aren't supposed to be alone, our evolutionary self is supposed to live in groups.

Eurus is tragical because she is a human being that has an extraordinary intelligence. She is isolated because she lives between people who can't adress to her mind. As if she's been living between people who are sleeping while she is awake. So she reaches out to the only people she can, people who come close to her abilities: Her brothers. Microft isn't much interested but it's different with Sherlock, for he is said to be a sensitive, more emotional child. With him she can play and she can challenge him. That's exactly what she does in TFP again. In her mind it's just a childrens play as awful as it is. She didn't kill Sherlock when she had the chance to do and she stopped him from shooting himself. She needs him as an oposite. But she can't handle emotions very well like rejection or frustration...that's when she becomes agressive and dangerous.

[J.P.]

while watching TFP I remember thinking more than once that it would be more merciful to kill her, instead of keeping her in that cage, without any external stimulation for her brain. We've seen what stagnation does to Sherlock, but she doesn't even have an option to shoot the wall.

 

As if she's been living between people who are sleeping while she is awake.

And that's what was shown with the airplane.

[SanaB]

I can't help but feel pity for her, although she killed so many people. And I can understand Sherlock who visits her and plays violine with her. Well she's his sister...

But it's important that she isn't with more\other people as manipulative as she is. Can't think of things she could do while being alone with John for example. The safety class is nothing to rely on.

[gerry]

I can't summon the pity for Eurus when she has no regard for human life. I'll save it for the people she kills with no remorse whatsoever.

[Arcadia]

I would agree if she could help being the way she is. But she can't, there's something broken in her that can't be fixed. I think that's what some of us feel pity for; the broken doll that would like to function normally, but can't.
 

while watching TFP I remember thinking more than once that it would be more merciful to kill her, instead of keeping her in that cage, without any external stimulation for her brain. We've seen what stagnation does to Sherlock, but she doesn't even have an option to shoot the wall.

Well, she does have the puzzles that Mycroft gives her to solve. But yeah, leaving her there in that place doesn't strike me as an act of mercy. Maybe there's a hidden door in that cell, and on the other side is a lovely apartment filled with art supplies and music. Not.
 
What do they really do with the criminally insane, does anyone know? You can't release them into the population of inmates in a sanitarium, I assume they're kept in isolation somewhere. But is any attempt made to socialize them? Long term isolation seems like cruel and unusual punishment to me, but I can't think of a solution. Books. Lots of books. And music. TV shows, except someone like Eurus would probably take apart the TV and turn it into a ray gun.

[gerry]

I don't get the sense that she wants to function normally. She can assimilate into society so she knows the proper way to behave or what is socially acceptable, she just chooses not to do so. I'm not sure she would be considered insane in the US because she seems to understand right and wrong. I think she'd end up in jail, not an asylum.

[Carol the Dabbler]

A good lawyer could get her a verdict of not guilty due to insanity, if the jury had not seen T6T or TLD.

[gerry]

Exactly. That's the proof she does in fact know right from wrong. If it was more like multiple personality disorder and not more or less going undercover under a new identity as other people it would be a different story.

[Carol the Dabbler]

There may be a difference, however, between knowing right from wrong -- and understanding the difference or why it's important.  Eurus can clearly mimic a typical law-abiding person, but to her it seems to be a meaningless bit of play-acting, like learning the lyrics to a nonsense song.  We wouldn't put someone in jail for failing to know the lyrics to Mairzy Doats or whatever, so I think a case could be made for not jailing Eurus.

 

On the other hand, it's pretty clear that the world needs to be protected from her, and I'm not sure what real difference there would be between providing that protection and imprisoning her.

[gerry]

Isn't the legal standard only knowing the difference between right and wrong, not why? I'm not a lawyer but that was always my understanding. The insanity defense is generally used I think for situations like schizophrenia and other mental disorders where mentally ill people lose sense of reality and themselves. Eurus doesn't strike me as someone who doesn't understand what is considered right and wrong, she just doesn't think she should have to abide by that standard. That's not insanity to me, more mental defect.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Eurus doesn't strike me as someone who doesn't understand what is considered right and wrong, she just doesn't think she should have to abide by that standard.

 

It's not my impression that she thinks she's above all that, if that's what you mean -- more like she considers the distinction between right and wrong to be completely arbitrary. So although she knows the difference, she does not understand the difference.

 

As you say, that might not fit the legal definition of insanity, but it's certainly an abberation that makes her a danger to society -- yet I can't see how it's her fault.

[gerry]

... but it's certainly an abberation that makes her a danger to society -- yet I can't see how it's her fault.

Couldn't you say the same about all sorts of criminals? What about serial rapists or pedophiles? There are many criminals who have a mental defect and can't control their urges to commit crimes. Are we supposed to say it's not their fault and feel pity for them too?

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm certainly not advocating letting them loose on society -- just saying perhaps they need treatment more than punishment -- though I have no idea what sort of "treatment" might make Eurus -- or those sex offenders you mentioned -- safe to be around.  I suspect treatment vs punishment is often more a matter of semantics than any actual difference.

[T.o.b.y]

I don't know about the US, but here in Germany the difference is jail vs forensic psychiatry. People are put in jail as punishment for crimes while they are sent to institutions to keep society safe from them and for them to receive treatment if possible. Deciding who goes where is anything but easy. One of my professors at university did psychiatric assessments of criminals and wrote recommendations for the courts and his lectures on the subject were interesting yet very confusing.

[SanaB]

I think Eurus can understand the difference between right and wrong. But it doesn't mean something to her. The definition of something right or something wrong was formed out of moral standards. That's something that is not important for her. She doesn't act with rules made by society. When she sees a human being, she normally just sees a mass of biological functions. Just that plain without any sense of emotions.

 

@T.O.B.Y: You studied law in Germany! Same here

[T.o.b.y]

@T.O.B.Y: You studied law in Germany! Same here

 

Not law, no. If I had tried that, I think I would have gone crazy within the first month. :P Good for you, mastering such a difficult subject!

 

I think Eurus understands what "ordinary" people consider right and wrong she just doesn't agree with their definitions and finds the distinction arbitrary. As for whether she has feelings, she must have, because she asked Mycroft "which one is pain?", not "what's pain?" or "what feelings?". She just seems to have had trouble identifying what she felt and what it meant.

 

 

[gerry]

I suspect treatment vs punishment is often more a matter of semantics than any actual difference.

What are the odds there's a treatment that would cure such a defect?

 

That's something that is not important for her. She doesn't act with rules made by society.

I think Eurus understands what "ordinary" people consider right and wrong she just doesn't agree with their definitions and finds the distinction arbitrary.

Exactly. She has decided what standard she will live by, and it's not society's standards even though she knows what society's standards are. To me that's arrogant and narcissistic, not pitiful.