Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[Pamela]

 

 

 

Someone help me out please - what's this 'Irene Adler element from The Greek Interpreter?

 

No idea. Adler isn't even mentioned in The Greek Interpreter. 

 

The Greek Interpreter does feature the story of a lady and her brother. Some criminals want the lady's property but her brother refuses to sign off the papers and eventually the criminals kill her brothers. By the end of the story, the criminals escape into another country but there comes news of their deaths. The official reports say they died fighting each other but Holmes chooses to believe that it was actually the lady who killed them for revenge.

 

Maybe Moffat is planning on replacing this lady with Irene Adler and doing some sort of backstory, family study etc of her.

 

However I think it's more likely that Moffat just named the incorrect story or maybe the interviewer got something wrong.

 

Okay, thanks. I really hope I don't ever see anything connecting her and anything remotely based on The Greek Interpreter. That would really be stretching things. I'm afraid my eyes would roll.

 

Besides, didn't they already have a "Geek Interpreter" reference? ;)

 

 

Yes you are correct.

 

You know that BBC created John's blog to tie-in with the universe? According to it, The Greek Interpreter happened on 16 June 2011:

http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/blog/16june

 

However that doesn't Moffatiss won't contradict their own canon by doing another The Greek Interpreter in the future. You see John's blog also featured The Six Thatchers on 19 December 2011:

http://www.johnwatsonblog.co.uk/blog/19december

 

It's funny that we got another The Six Thatchers story set in 2015.

 

It's funny that BBC stopped updating this blog after Season 3. I guess they realised Mofatiss were going to contradict themselves again and again so there's no point. I mean this blog was already in contradiction with the events in the show as some of the dates are wrong e.g. according to the blog, Sherlock was missing for one year but according to the show he was missing for two.

 

It looks like Moffatiss don't plan out the details correctly and end up contradicting themselves as a result.

 

Well, they're as attentive to these details as ACD was. Which means, not much. So I guess it's canonical.

[Arcadia]

An amusing take on this episode:

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/sherlock-the-final-problem-for-employers-21396/

[gerry]

 

 

 

 

Did he say what more can be done with Irene? What would be the point of bringing her back for a one episode every fourth season? I liked that episode but I just can't understand story wise how they would keep it going unless they want to tie it into mycroft and government business again.

From this article:

He revealed that he's interested in 'The Engineer's Thumb' and the Irene Adler element from 'The Greek Interpreter' where he'd like to explore the option of having Adler and Holmes meet again.

I'm hoping he's bluffing, but I'd say likely not.

If it makes you feel better it appears he's been saying Irene could be back since season 3. Maybe the actress's schedule hasn't permitted it yet or she doesn't like his writing either!

Technically Irene had a cameo appearance in Sherlock's mind palace in The Sing of Three.

 

I think it's more Moffat doesn't know how to bring back villains after their initial storylines are over. I mean look at what he did with Moriarty in this episode. It doesn't even make sense for Moriary and Euros to be working together since they have different end goals. But hey somehow Euros is Moriarty's accomplice. It felt like the Moriarty scene in this episode was just an easy way for Moffatiss to shoe horn him in.

I agree with that. He spent more time coming up with things for dead characters to do this season (Mary and Moriarty) than the supporting characters that have been on the show since the beginning (Lestrade and Molly). I don't know why they kill off characters if they're not done with them but don't write for the ones that aren't dead.

[sfmpco]

And in the meantime, has anyone noticed that in Molly's 2-second end scene that she is wearing a gold band on her ring finger?  Yes, she is.  

[Amber§]

Really???? :o  Does it mean she's married? No, it's impossible, maybe that's a family ring

Or maybe is a ring that usually wears the actress and forgot to put it away.

[Arcadia]

OMG. They are all just a bunch of little devils, aren't they? :d

[gerry]

Sherlock isn't though is he so if the ring has meaning it must not have anything to do with Sherlock. Would they have married her off during the time it took to rebuild the apartment? That does seem like something the show would do actually.

[BLS_Pro]

A brisk video analysis of The Final Problem - delving into some ideas mentioned here, exploring a few not yet discussed, and identifying many of the callbacks to prior episodes, cultural references, and Doyle canon connections.  Of course, while not exhaustive, it definitely tries to be attentive:

[J.P.]

But he got the GWJ thing wrong. :D IG is for Griff, Arwel's son.

 

Still, I like it being a man's POV. You cannot say he's fangirling ;)

[BLS_Pro]

But he got the GWJ thing wrong. :D IG is for Griff, Arwel's son.

Indeed.  I posted for his attempt at relative thoroughness, not because I believed everything he stated was correct. 

 

[Redbeard]

I enjoyed that video thanks for posting it!  Unfortunately, it seems he has analyses of other episodes too, so there goes my plans for tonight lol.  

 

I was thinking more about the Holmes parents.  Were they working together with Mycroft on keeping Sherlock's memories repressed?  I know they thought she was dead, but why would they never discuss her?  How is it that over a lifetime , all the visits, all the Christmases...they never had one photo, or one discussed memory, or mention of their daughter?  Did they intentionally hide any trace of her because they thought it would be too traumatic for Sherlock?  Maybe they had photos but he was never the sentimental type to go looking through old family albums?  Were they just happy with him not remembering?  I can't remember (ironic, huh?) if they made any indication about it in the episode. 

[BLS_Pro]

I was thinking more about the Holmes parents.  Were they working together with Mycroft on keeping Sherlock's memories repressed? 

The show didn't provide any explicit indication they had all conspired to keep Sherlock's memories repressed.  But, for all the reasons you indicate and more, that would seem to be the only logical conclusion. 

 

[Arcadia]

Sherlock isn't though is he so if the ring has meaning it must not have anything to do with Sherlock. Would they have married her off during the time it took to rebuild the apartment? That does seem like something the show would do actually.

Well, we're not even sure if it's deliberate, but if it is, I'm willing to bet it's there so that fans can make of it whatever they want. Married to Sherlock, married to someone else, married but widowed, never married but wearing a ring anyway ... it's all fuel for the fanfic fires, imo. I think it's rather sweet of them. :D

 

And do we know how much time has passed by the time Molly appears? How old is Rosie at the end there, anyway? Did they even manage to bring the series up to 2017, at least?

[bedelia1984]

 

Sherlock isn't though is he so if the ring has meaning it must not have anything to do with Sherlock. Would they have married her off during the time it took to rebuild the apartment? That does seem like something the show would do actually.

Well, we're not even sure if it's deliberate, but if it is, I'm willing to bet it's there so that fans can make of it whatever they want. Married to Sherlock, married to someone else, married but widowed, never married but wearing a ring anyway ... it's all fuel for the fanfic fires, imo. I think it's rather sweet of them. :D

 

And do we know how much time has passed by the time Molly appears? How old is Rosie at the end there, anyway? Did they even manage to bring the series up to 2017, at least?

 

 

I went back to watch it and I don't see any ring! Do other people see it? I would think it was for the fans, if it was there, but I haven't been able to find it. Has anyone seen a screencap?

 

I feel like it should have been at least a year or two into the hiatus/forever before analysis went to this level of crazy.

[Arcadia]

Wait until we start talking about shoes. :D

[gerry]

And do we know how much time has passed by the time Molly appears? How old is Rosie at the end there, anyway? Did they even manage to bring the series up to 2017, at least?

Good question. The baby playing Rosie didn't look too old but who knows if that is any indication. Has to be at least several months though, right?

[gerry]

I went back to watch it and I don't see any ring! Do other people see it? I would think it was for the fans, if it was there, but I haven't been able to find it. Has anyone seen a screencap?

 

I feel like it should have been at least a year or two into the hiatus/forever before analysis went to this level of crazy.

I went back to watch it as well but couldn't tell for sure either. The clip is too quick to be able to know, don't you think unless you can slo-mo it somehow.

[BLS_Pro]

I just went back and watched Doctor Who: Heaven Sent again.  One: it shows what the director of T6T can do with a good script.  Two: Eurus (the child on the plane) is the Doctor  - she's trapped, tortured, and constantly terrified (in "my hell" as the Doctor says) - but without his hope of escaping by herself. 
 

[J.P.]

Did anyone mentioned the little actress playing the girl on the plane? She was very good too, we have seen her already in another little part and nobody seems to mention her. :(

[bedelia1984]

Oh, what other part, J.P., I didn't notice?

[J.P.]

She was one of the girls that were clients, missing their …grandpa? Sherlock explained dead people are burned.

[bedelia1984]

Nice Catch! They tend to have fantastic child actors on the show. Archie was great too, I liked that they re-used him. Funny that those girls had a connection to the flight of the dead also.

[BLS_Pro]

More Existentialism references:

When describing Eurus to Sherlock and John, Mycroft 'remembers' himself skipping pebbles while Eurus watches Sherlock and "Redbeard" engaged in 'frivolous play'.  In his adult form, Mycroft picks up a pebble.  We cut back to 221b and he is holding the pebble his palm, saying:  "She knew things she should never have known...as if she were somehow aware of truths beyond the normal scope".  After being 'disturbed' by the memory, the pebble is no longer in Mycroft's hand.  We hear it having been dropped in the water.

 

This is an allusion to the Existentialist Sartre's "Nausea".  It mirrors when the book's protagonist Roquentin first became aware of the "existential condition" of man.  He had picked up a pebble, wanting to play "ducks and drakes" "to throw a pebble into the sea like [the children at play]".  But he "stopped, dropped the pebble and walked away".  This was his first experience of "the Nausea: this blinding revelation" that there is no meaning to anything in existence.  Existence is absurd, a horror show.  At that moment, Roquentin first became aware of "truths beyond the normal scope":  the truth that existence is absurd and meaningless - leaving him in isolation, feeling great "terror" and "angst".  That is his normal condition.

And that is Eurus in total - given to us in a mere 25 seconds.

 

That is great writing.

 

 

As to the dismissive notion that Eurus is 'merely' suffering from a "mental condition" - that she was "born" supposedly 'defective' in some way, rather than the explicitly stated fact that she is so intelligent as to be "aware of truths beyond the normal scope" - Sartre's point is:

"Roquentin's problem is not simply depression or mental illness, although his experience has pushed him to that point. Sartre presents Roquentin's difficulties as arising from man's inherent existential condition. His seemingly special circumstances (returning from travel, reclusiveness), which goes beyond the mere indication of his very real depression, are supposed to induce in him (and in the reader) a state that makes one more receptive to noticing an existential situation that everyone has, but may not be sensitive enough to let become noticeable. Roquentin undergoes a strange metaphysical experience that estranges him from the world. His problems are not merely a result of personal insanity, without larger significance. Rather...they are victims of larger ideological, social, and existential forces that have brought them to the brink of insanity. Sartre's point in Nausea is to comment on our universal reaction to these common external problems."

In other words, Eurus isn't suffering from a psychological illness or defect that somehow prevents her from grasping reality.  She is suffering from a philosophic awareness of reality - of everyone's natural condition - to which much of the rest of the world is blind.   Her vision of herself as a helpless little girl, eternally trapped in a plane - alone and terrified - is her metaphoric grasp and expression of that 'natural condition'. 

[Arcadia]

I agree, I think she grasps what reality is. (Or at least, what she thinks it is.) I think the issue is one of meaning; she can't find any.

[BLS_Pro]

I agree, I think she grasps what reality is. (Or at least, what she thinks it is.) I think the issue is one of meaning; she can't find any.

Indeed.  And the supposed reason for that meaninglessness is that things have no meaning unto themselves.  As Sartre would put it, they are "nothing".  A thing just "is what it is". 

 

"she can't find any [meaning]".  And that is The Final Problem - how to find meaning in the meaningless.