Episode 4.3 "The Final Problem"

[Janyss]

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?

[Carol the Dabbler]

They have been known to, yes. You might go to the next Sherlocked convention and see if you can get to be one of the questioners for a panel discussion. J.P. has been to a couple of those, so you might ask her for advice.

[Janyss]

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.

[Arcadia]

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it that way either, but I do think current events do tend to influence how things are written, even if subconsciously. Or maybe it just that they influence the way the audience interprets them. Maybe both!

 

I didn't see any particular contradiction in Mycroft's actions. I see a man who wants to protect his family and his country, but has hardened his own heart so much that he doesn't see how much harm his methods sometimes cause. Or maybe he sees it, but justifies it to himself as being "for the greater good."

 

I don't remember a lot about Chamberlain, but I do remember he was regarded very poorly in our history texts in school. Hindsight is 20/20 though, and I do believe there is a lot of truth in the phrase "war is failure." But so was appeasement, at least, at that particular point in time. Too bad Chamberlain didn't have a time machine so he could go to the future and check out the results of his actions before he took them.

[Janyss]

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.

[Carol the Dabbler]

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....

 

That's just human nature, isn't it?  For example, how many of the people who eat meat could bring themselves to kill the animal themselves?

[Janyss]

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 agree, we got to learn more about Mycroft in Season 4, and it's not always to his credit. But he does, like most of the other characters, reveal more of his "human" side, both the dark and the light.

 

I didn't get the feeling Moftiss were trying to address a particular political situation, but I did think they were making a point about the perceived hypocrisy of bureaucrats who will send children off to fight wars but won't put themselves in harm's way. I'm not sure they really pulled it off, though, because I rather sympathized with Mycroft's refusal to shoot the governor. And in the end, John (the "decent one") couldn't do it either, so I'm still not sure how he and Mycroft differ in that regard. (Also I don't like the implication that Sherlock would have had no trouble pulling the trigger.)

 

I also felt that they were attempting to show Mycroft had no real courage, but I don't agree with that either ... if he didn't, he wouldn't have tried to convince Sherlock to shoot him instead of John. So I really don't know WHAT they were trying to say about Mycroft! ... except that he really is "just human" like everyone else.

[gerry]

That’s interesting. What made you think the implication was that Sherlock would have had no trouble killing the governor? I didn’t get a feeling either way about that.

[Carol the Dabbler]

...I rather sympathized with Mycroft's refusal to shoot the governor. And in the end, John (the "decent one") couldn't do it either, so I'm still not sure how he and Mycroft differ in that regard.

 

Well, there's this: Mycroft immediately refused to even take the gun, saying that he didn't want "blood on his hands." I hear a faint echo of his aversion to "legwork" there -- note that he didn't say that killing the governor was a bad idea under the circumstances, just that he didn't care to do it himself.

 

John was willing in principle to do it (so there's one difference). He probably thought, well I've killed before, so I know I can do it. But when it came right down to it, he just couldn't kill an innocent man in cold blood (the "strong moral principle" that Sherlock mentioned in ASiP). John didn't refuse to do it (as Mycroft had), he tried but found that he couldn't.

[T.o.b.y]

I agree, we got to learn more about Mycroft in Season 4, and it's not always to his credit. But he does, like most of the other characters, reveal more of his "human" side, both the dark and the light.

 

I didn't get the feeling Moftiss were trying to address a particular political situation, but I did think they were making a point about the perceived hypocrisy of bureaucrats who will send children off to fight wars but won't put themselves in harm's way. I'm not sure they really pulled it off, though, because I rather sympathized with Mycroft's refusal to shoot the governor. And in the end, John (the "decent one") couldn't do it either, so I'm still not sure how he and Mycroft differ in that regard. (Also I don't like the implication that Sherlock would have had no trouble pulling the trigger.)

 

I also felt that they were attempting to show Mycroft had no real courage, but I don't agree with that either ... if he didn't, he wouldn't have tried to convince Sherlock to shoot him instead of John. So I really don't know WHAT they were trying to say about Mycroft! ... except that he really is "just human" like everyone else.

Well, I saw it as the kind of statement about bureaucrats you mention earlier in this post and it works for me, mostly because that's something that infuriates me beyond compare: well-paid people in suits sitting around safely in office buildings, making decisions that cost other, less fortunate people their lives.

 

I think this is actually the key to my dislike of the character. He embodies that kind of power. I for one found deep satisfaction seeing him get his comeuppance in S4, even though I think Mummy Holmes is wrong when she scolds him and calls Sherlock the adult. She and her husband were supposed to be the adults in that family and from what we know, they pretty much failed their children.

 

Part of Eurus' plan was to confront the boys with the consequences of their professional actions and choices and expose all three of them as killers: Mycroft arranges for the government to work with asassins, among other things, as we know from the AGRA incident. Sherlock tracks down and exposes people guilty of crimes that, at least in some countries (and we know he doesn't work for England only) could result in the death penalty (see Belarus). John was a soldier and a doctor, he's got to have a certain body count as well.

 

Because Sherlock and John are more hands-on than Mycroft, however, they dealt better with that than he did. Also, even this more mature Sherlock is pretty callous about human life. He seemed way more upset about having to toy with Molly's heart than the fate of the brothers Garrideb.

 

Not one of the angels for sure.

[Arcadia]

That’s interesting. What made you think the implication was that Sherlock would have had no trouble killing the governor? I didn’t get a feeling either way about that.

 

Because Eurus specified that either John or Mycroft had to do it. The implication to me was that she thought Sherlock would have no trouble pulling the trigger, so she tortured the other two in front of him instead. I could be wrong, that's just how it came across to me.

 

 

...I rather sympathized with Mycroft's refusal to shoot the governor. And in the end, John (the "decent one") couldn't do it either, so I'm still not sure how he and Mycroft differ in that regard.

Well, there's this: Mycroft immediately refused to even take the gun, saying that he didn't want "blood on his hands." I hear a faint echo of his aversion to "legwork" there -- note that he didn't say that killing the governor was a bad idea under the circumstances, just that he didn't care to do it himself.

 

John was willing in principle to do it (so there's one difference). He probably thought, well I've killed before, so I know I can do it. But when it came right down to it, he just couldn't kill an innocent man in cold blood (the "strong moral principle" that Sherlock mentioned in ASiP). John didn't refuse to do it (as Mycroft had), he tried but found that he couldn't.

 

 

True, but what I really meant was ... I'm not sure why that makes Mycroft worse than John, which I think is what a lot of people believe. (??) I get that Mycroft was supposed to be rather hypocritical with his "I can't get blood on my hands" remark -- we all know there must be tons of blood that can be traced back to his decisions -- but I didn't think the situation really fit that point. Neither the governor nor his wife "deserved" to die, so refusing to kill one in order to save the other wasn't, to me, the same as choosing to hire AGRA to kill someone who's politically inconvenient. Does that make sense?

 

At any rate, that's all just a long-winded way of saying: I wouldn't have taken the gun either. If someone had to die, let it be Eurus' decision to do the deed, not mine. Maybe that's the coward's way out, but I'll readily admit to not having the courage to shoot someone in cold blood. If courage is, indeed, what it takes?

 

Well, I saw it as the kind of statement about bureaucrats you mention earlier in this post and it works for me, mostly because that's something that infuriates me beyond compare: well-paid people in suits sitting around safely in office buildings, making decisions that cost other, less fortunate people their lives.

 

I think this is actually the key to my dislike of the character. He embodies that kind of power. I for one found deep satisfaction seeing him get his comeuppance in S4, even though I think Mummy Holmes is wrong when she scolds him and calls Sherlock the adult. She and her husband were supposed to be the adults in that family and from what we know, they pretty much failed their children.

It's funny, because one of my fondest wishes was to see Sherlock finally get the upper hand on Mycroft. But when it happened, because of the way it happened, there was no satisfaction in it for me. Instead, I ended up feeling a bit sorry for Mycroft; that remark of Mummy's was unnecessarily mean (and in no way possibly true, imo!)

 

But I like to think that was intentional, that it was supposed to reflect part of Sherlock's journey. I like to think that he, too, was hoping to thoroughly squash his big brother one day, but when the chance arose, he felt sympathy for Mycroft instead. He finally got past his immature resentment and moved onto something closer to understanding and acceptance.

 

But I still would have preferred to see Sherlock simply pull the rug out from under Mycroft and for a minute, at least, wipe that smug smile off his face. I guess I just want all the fun and none of the angst.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'll readily admit to not having the courage to shoot someone in cold blood. If courage is, indeed, what it takes?

(Yay! I finally managed to do a copy-and-paste on my phone!)

 

I think killing somebody that one has no grudge against, as in this scene, simply because of an arbitrary threat would take large amounts of grim determination.

 

When I was a kid, Mom had a small flock of hens, and in addition to gathering the eggs, would now and then decide to turn one of them into chicken-and-dumplings. I was perfectly willing to help with plucking the feathers out and cutting up the chicken, but knew I wouldn't be able to do the actual head-chopping. I figured I'd have to be really grown up in order to do that -- by which I think meant able to ignore my empathy and do it anyhow because I thought it had to be done.

[Janyss]

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".

[Arcadia]

 

I'll readily admit to not having the courage to shoot someone in cold blood. If courage is, indeed, what it takes?

(Yay! I finally managed to do a copy-and-paste on my phone!)

 

I think killing somebody that one has no grudge against, as in this scene, simply because of an arbitrary threat would take large amounts of grim determination.

 

When I was a kid, Mom had a small flock of hens, and in addition to gathering the eggs, would now and then decide to turn one of them into chicken-and-dumplings. I was perfectly willing to help with plucking the feathers out and cutting up the chicken, but knew I wouldn't be able to do the actual head-chopping. I figured I'd have to be really grown up in order to do that -- by which I think meant able to ignore my empathy and do it anyhow because I thought it had to be done.

 

 

I understand what you're saying, but I think I'd be hard put to kill a hen, too. My dad used to tell a hysterically funny story about that, but to make it short ... neither he nor Mom could bring themselves to do it either, the one time they raised hens. And my mother grew up on a working farm, they had chicken for dinner all the time! But of course you have to factor in whether it's genuinely "necessary" or not ... that was about the only meat my mom's folks had to eat. To go without would have been a true hardship. But by the time she was married to Dad, the grocery store was just a few minutes away ....

 

At any rate, at risk of great emotional trauma to myself, I have finally learned to kill the mice that invade the house. I hate it passionately, but they take over and become a health hazard otherwise, so it's become me or them. So I do think I'd take steps to defend myself or my loved ones if, God forbid, the occasion arose. But I still don't think I could have killed the governor under the circumstances laid out in TFP, because there would have been no risk to me or mine. Quite possibly I'd take Sherlock's way out and shoot myself first. Might as well, I don't think my life would be worth living if I killed someone under those circumstances, or allowed someone else to die due to my inaction. Lose-lose situation.

 

 

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".

 

I agree with all this. At the beginning of the episode it seems Mycroft is finally paying the price for his tendency to assume too much power over everyone else. But by the end you feel a bit sorry for him because he really was trying to do the best he could ... and no one but Sherlock seemed to appreciate that.

 

Having said that, though, I think I would have been just as angry with him as Mummy was, if I had been in her shoes ... because that was mighty presumptuous of him, to make all those decisions for the entire family by himself. Wrong!

[J.P.]

Well, I saw it as the kind of statement about bureaucrats you mention earlier in this post and it works for me, mostly because that's something that infuriates me beyond compare: well-paid people in suits sitting around safely in office buildings, making decisions that cost other, less fortunate people their lives.

 

I think this is actually the key to my dislike of the character. He embodies that kind of power. I for one found deep satisfaction seeing him get his comeuppance in S4, even though I think Mummy Holmes is wrong when she scolds him and calls Sherlock the adult. She and her husband were supposed to be the adults in that family and from what we know, they pretty much failed their children.

To me the sad reality is that we need people like that. As much as we need butchers, agents, anti-terrorists and soldiers, and ratters. There would be no strategy in the warfare if strategists got killed in the first battle (which probably would be better for everyone, but let's stay realistic). I don't even want to know what Mycrofts of this world know and what decisions they have to make. Think Coventry. Think letting Germans sink British ships to keep Turing's machine secret. Think Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

Myc has all my sympathy. He carries a whole world on his shoulders and his family past doesn't necessarily make it all easier.

 

But I still wish they would wrote the "blood on my hands" scene more nuanced, because it does feel a little bit out of character for Mycroft to fall apart that early in Eurus' game and then we see his old self when he tries to make Sherlock shoot him - and I will be forever grateful that Mofftiss gave him this fantastic scene.

[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.

[Artemis]

I didn't see any particular contradiction in Mycroft's actions.

Coming late to this conversation, but I think I can understand what Janyss meant by 'contradictions'. For instance, I was surprised when Mycroft retched in response to the governor killing himself. Considering the power he's held over the lives (and I presume deaths) of other people in the course of his career, I wasn't expecting such a physical reaction from him. Upon further reflection I guess I could understand why they chose to write it that way, and that really it's probably just as likely as a more composed response. It just seemed out of character to me at the time, and it did seem a bit of a contradiction. It was like he'd never seen blood before.

 

(Which, just to add, we know is not true. He watched Sherlock being tortured. He saw Sherlock shoot CAM in the head, although that was from a distance. He watched Moriarty being interrogated. They didn't show much blood on Moriarty on-screen, but if they "interrogated him for weeks," I have to believe there was some.)

[J.P.]

And he saw Mary killed.

[Janyss]

In a very polite and civilized way, he also threatens Irène Adler of torture if she doesn't give the code of the phone.

Definitely, in the governor's scene he's overwhelmed by his lies and the consequences of his decisions. Mr Iceman is melting under our eyes and then is recognizing his failure (reason why he decides he will die and John won't, and why I think he tells the truth to his parents). The writers have probably been short of time for Mycroft in the end, I assume he would have told Sherlock and John the truth about Victor. But the effect of this last lie is that we see him trying to protect Sherlock from horrors until the end.

[Arcadia]

I like to think that he also underestimated how much Sherlock actually cares about him. Imagine thinking Sherlock would be better off shooting his brother than shooting his best friend. As if either would be more bearable to him.

 

That's why it surprised me that Eurus didn't anticipate that Sherlock would elect to shoot himself, instead. It seemed the obvious solution, to me. But maybe she, like Mycroft, was fooled by Sherlock's usual antagonism towards Mycroft. Heck, maybe even Sherlock himself didn't realize how much he cared about Mycroft until he was confronted with the prospect of killing him.

[Artemis]

^ I agree with all the above. I thought it seemed the obvious solution too. It's what I would have done, anyway.

[J.P.]

I think maybe Eurus had no idea about sacrifice. It's not logical if you look at it from the POV of survival.

 

As for Mycroft trying to get himself shot - geez, imagine you want your brother to kill you so you make him hate you. He was about to sacrifice everything, even the hope Sherlock might one day understand and forgive (not to mention learn to love) him. This is just

[Janyss]

The fact that they get a poisoned shard shows that Euros has anticipated something like that, doesn't it? As a genius, she must have planned all the possible options (even if one surprises her), and anyway she has an answer: after that she just gets rid of Mycroft and goes on pressuring Sherlock with John's fate.

 

About what Arcadia wrote: Sherlock has always considered Mycroft important in his life. We can see it in various épisodes, when Mycroft is talking in Sherlock's mind palace for eg. But there is Something more in TFP: the two brother get better understanding on each other. Sherlock realises why Mycroft acted some questionable ways, and Mycroft aknowledges the fact that his brother has chosen his own brotherhood -with John-, and shows by sacrifying himself that he understands its importance. I must admit I completely bought the "kill him, he has absolutely no interest" thing. I think Mycroft's reactions during the governor's scene, even if a little out of characters, was aimed at preparing us to fall in this trap. Mark Gatiss' acting added to the efficiency... 

[J.P.]

I "got it" somewhere in the middle of Myc's speech, which gave me the satisfaction of being right when Sherlock "got it" too. :D