Episode 1.3, "The Great Game"

[T.o.b.y]

"Will caring for them help save them" - Sherlock does want to save them, that's the important part.

[Boton]

I love that, and it's a beautiful piece of writing and character development.  Sherlock doesn't not care, but, like so many things in his life, he realizes that caring can impede his ability to solve the puzzles and ultimately save the person involved.  Emotion and empathy would actually distract him from the job, whereas for some people it would make the job easier.

 

Nice Spock reference, Carol.  I never believed that Spock was emotionless either -- he was the most emotional one of the crew, and that's why he had to control it.

[T.o.b.y]

I love that, and it's a beautiful piece of writing and character development.  Sherlock doesn't not care, but, like so many things in his life, he realizes that caring can impede his ability to solve the puzzles and ultimately save the person involved.  Emotion and empathy would actually distract him from the job, whereas for some people it would make the job easier.

 

I think this is where it comes through that Doyle based Sherlock Holmes on a doctor (one of his medical professors at university). That's a very doctorish attitude. And, also doctor-like, Sherlock can, when he wants to and thinks it will help the work, be just lovely with his clients. (Though I must say, the original Mr Holmes had a much better bedside, um, sorry, client-side, manner, than our Sherlock does...)

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe that's why (the original) Holmes and Watson get on so well -- they both have a doctor's outlook.  (Well, of course they do, since they both sprang from Dr. Conan Doyle's mind.)

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

 

(Though I must say, the original Mr Holmes had a much better bedside, um, sorry, client-side, manner, than our Sherlock does...)

 

  This is true, but Mofftiss have often stated that what we are seeing is the growing up progress, taking a young, emotional inept Sherlock Holmes to the controlled and polished Holmes of the canon. 

[Boton]

And just watched TGG.  I'm on a roll tonight!  

 

Sherlock is so full of it with all of his non-caring mumbo jumbo.  The look on his face when the old lady dies kills me:

 

"Hospitals are full of hundreds of dying people. Why don't you cry by their bedside DOCTOR and see what good it does them."

"Will caring about them help save them?"

"I have been reliably informed that I don't have one (heart)."

 

That is not the face of a man who doesn't care. 

 

I was watching TGG this weekend, and it occurred to me that this scene strikes me as a kind of "first" for Sherlock.  Not that he hasn't been solving crimes for a long time by now, and not even that he has never had a case with life or death implications, but maybe that this is the first time that he's ever encountered a case that doesn't conform to his own rules of engagement?  I sense a lot of caring in the scene above, and then later he's absolutely furious that he solved the puzzle but the woman dies anyway, and then he hides a bit behind the idea of not caring.  I don't know what it is, but I think this is a pivotal moment in the development of our character here.  I can't see him experiencing this kind of shock after Serbia, for instance.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Is he shocked because the old lady (and a dozen or two of her neighbors) died, or because Moriarty didn't followed The Rules (as Sherlock understood them)?

 

[sittything]

But Sherlock told the older lady not to describe Moriarty to him.  I think he knew what could happen if she did so given that he was telling her "Tell me nothing about him. Nothing."

[Boton]

Is he shocked because the old lady (and a dozen or two of her neighbors) died, or because Moriarty didn't followed The Rules (as Sherlock understood them)?

 

 

In my mind?  Both.  He thought the clock had stopped when he solved the puzzle, so anything that happened after that point shouldn't count.  He realized when the old lady started to describe Moriarty that the game might still be on and tried to stop her, but it was too late.  I think its fair for him to be shocked on both levels -- both the carnage and the failure to obey the rules of the game. 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect you're right.  So that may have been Sherlock's first lesson about the real world (the one that isn't fair).  Before that, deduction may have been just a fun game, with no more consequences than a round of checkers.

 

[T.o.b.y]

I was watching TGG this weekend, and it occurred to me that this scene strikes me as a kind of "first" for Sherlock.  Not that he hasn't been solving crimes for a long time by now, and not even that he has never had a case with life or death implications, but maybe that this is the first time that he's ever encountered a case that doesn't conform to his own rules of engagement?  I sense a lot of caring in the scene above, and then later he's absolutely furious that he solved the puzzle but the woman dies anyway, and then he hides a bit behind the idea of not caring.  I don't know what it is, but I think this is a pivotal moment in the development of our character here.  I can't see him experiencing this kind of shock after Serbia, for instance.

 

Mhm, but what happened in Serbia only happened to him. Sherlock is curiously, alarmingly indifferent to harm done to himself. It's harm done to other people, which he (thinks) he could have in any way prevented that gets to him.

 

He's a good man, deep down inside somewhere. And he does care. In his very own way. If he didn't care, he wouldn't be solving people's problems, he'd be creating them, like Moriarty or Magnussen. I don't think he has a primarily altruistic motivation for what he does, mind you - he's way too egocentric for that - but he does have a philanthropist streak in him.

 

 

[Boton]

 

 

Mhm, but what happened in Serbia only happened to him. Sherlock is curiously, alarmingly indifferent to harm done to himself. It's harm done to other people, which he (thinks) he could have in any way prevented that gets to him.

 

He's a good man, deep down inside somewhere. And he does care. In his very own way. If he didn't care, he wouldn't be solving people's problems, he'd be creating them, like Moriarty or Magnussen. ...

 

 

Yes, I agree.  I simply think that watching people be absolutely horrid and violent to one another (and being at the receiving end of that a few times) could impact the amount of shock you feel when a Moriarty doesn't play by the rules.

 

I agree that Sherlock is a good man, fundamentally.  The ACD Holmes had a very strong sense of justice, even when he didn't think much of the law enforcement structure, and I think our Sherlock is the same.   

[Carol the Dabbler]

He's a good man, deep down inside somewhere. And he does care. In his very own way. If he didn't care, he wouldn't be solving people's problems, he'd be creating them, like Moriarty or Magnussen. I don't think he has a primarily altruistic motivation for what he does, mind you - he's way too egocentric for that - but he does have a philanthropist streak in him.

... or perhaps he simply likes to think of himself as admirable. So even though he doesn't care to act like a "normal" person, he isn't rebelling to the extent of becoming a villain.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Nothing like watching this episode on BBCA with the pink phone beeping for the Connie Prince challenge, and a moment later my phone beeps with a notification from this site

[Boton]

 

He's a good man, deep down inside somewhere. And he does care. In his very own way. If he didn't care, he wouldn't be solving people's problems, he'd be creating them, like Moriarty or Magnussen. I don't think he has a primarily altruistic motivation for what he does, mind you - he's way too egocentric for that - but he does have a philanthropist streak in him.

... or perhaps he simply likes to think of himself as admirable. So even though he doesn't care to act like a "normal" person, he isn't rebelling to the extent of becoming a villain.

For me, I go back to Sherlock's DNA for this : the ACD canon. Holmes was always on the side of justice, even if he had disdain for following proper channels. I think our Sherlock is the same, which is why he is on the side of the angels but isn't one of them.

[T.o.b.y]

*Sigh*... why can't the whole series be like this episode? The case work, for one thing. This episode has what, 6 cases? And they're all clever, and all fully explained, not just mentioned in some flashback or to squeeze some silly puns in.

 

And even though I almost know all the dialogue by heart, for some reason, the story still has me sitting on the edge of my chair biting my nails. Especially that terrible countdown with the little boy. I keep shouting "hurry up, Sherlock!", even though I know perfectly well that he's going to solve the painting in the nick of time.

 

That pool scene is still my favorite bit of television ever. It's so intense, yet so little actually happens. There are no big gestures, no helicopters, no howling violins. It's just three men talking (and one of them doesn't really say much). Yet it's about the most powerful piece of acting I've ever seen.

 

John is really a riot. He's just barely escaped being blown up, and what does he worry about? "People might talk". Yeah right, John, that is really the most pressing problem you have right now. Great priorities. I love how Sherlock responds, by the way. "People do little else", and then that smile. I think Sherlock really truly does not care what people say about him in general, and I have to admire that.

 

Martin Freeman is such a great actor. How he staggers right after he's got the semtex vest off, that looks 100% real to me.

[Pamela]

Yes, this really is a priceless one, isn't it?

[Arcadia]

*Sigh*... why can't the whole series be like this episode? The case work, for one thing. This episode has what, 6 cases? And they're all clever, and all fully explained, not just mentioned in some flashback or to squeeze some silly puns in.

Because then it would be formulaic, and we have plenty of those on TV already? :P

[Carol the Dabbler]

... the story still has me sitting on the edge of my chair biting my nails. Especially that terrible countdown with the little boy. I keep shouting "hurry up, Sherlock!", even though I know perfectly well that he's going to solve the painting in the nick of time.

And note how he walks away for a moment, then returns and speaks to Moriarty at literally the last second. Drama queen for sure!

 

John is really a riot. He's just barely escaped being blown up, and what does he worry about? "People might talk". Yeah right, John, that is really the most pressing problem you have right now. Great priorities.

I believe he's easing the tension with humor. Works that way for me, anyhow. (And Sherlock too, apparently.)

 

Martin Freeman is such a great actor.

I agree. And so does Sir Ian McKellen. (Wish I could find that quote online.)

[sittything]

Carol, this?

 

http://www.mtv.com/news/1698933/the-hobbit-martin-freeman/

 

“One of the great joys of this film is getting to know Martin,” the actor, who has played the wizard Gandalf in all of Jackson’s Middle-earth adventures, told MTV about the titular Hobbit. “He has such an individual personality, as you can tell when you see the film — but in all of his work, too. He’s very quirky and has a very dry wit.”

 

McKellen had not yet seen “The Hobbit” at the time of our interview, but he had a strong suspicion about his reaction to Freeman’s performance: “I think I’m going to feel as everybody else seems to think: that an international big-screen movie star has been born.”

[Carol the Dabbler]

Thanks, sitty -- that's not the exact quote I was thinking of, but it's close.  There's an extra feature on, I think, the extended-edition DVD of the second movie, where several of the Hobbit actors are asked what was their favorite part of the entire experience, and McKellen says that his was (near as I can recall his words), "Working face to face with Martin Freeman, one of the great actors."  Impressive praise, coming from an actor who's no slouch himself!

 

I also liked what McKellen said on (I'm guessing here) the extended-edition DVD of the first movie, and something very similar is quoted in Brian Sibley's Official Movie Guide for the second Hobbit:

 

One of the great joys and privileges of having made these films is to be close to Martin Freeman when he's working.  <snip>  ... his most remarkable quality as an actor, and one that I despair of emulating, is his ability to be able, with absolute clarity, to convey the fact that he's thinking, as we all often do, two different things at the same time.  With Martin the inside is evident on the outside and an audience instantly knows what those thoughts are.

 

On the DVD, McKellen goes on to describe this as "a new type of acting."

 

[sfmpco]

Somehow this should have foreshadowed Magnussen's end.

 

[stick]

The first time I watched this it didn't really sink in, I thought it was good but kind of all over the place but when watching it again I got it. Its a sublime piece of television. 

[sfmpco]

The first time I watched this it didn't really sink in, I thought it was good but kind of all over the place but when watching it again I got it. Its a sublime piece of television. 

 

Yes, it's great, and BTW, welcome to the forum!

[stick]

 

The first time I watched this it didn't really sink in, I thought it was good but kind of all over the place but when watching it again I got it. Its a sublime piece of television. 

 

Yes, it's great, and BTW, welcome to the forum!

 

 

Thank you. happy to find somewhere I can talk about Sherlock