Subtext Interpretation... What Do You See?

[BlackButterfly]

Agree thats what happens on screen but is not what is happening in the subtext.

[BlackButterfly]

A simple and obvious way they show us John is uncomfortable in his marriage and maybe even the marriage bed.

We see John on the bed suicidal and depressed etc in Pink

Lieing awake and worried /thoughtful next to Mary after SH return

Having nightmares about the war and Sherlock in hlv.

 

look at the colours -set design-lighting etc.

Its deliberate its simple its obvious.Its pretty standard stuff in film direction.

 

Why weren't John and Mary shown happily making breakfast or something when the neighbout visited..they wanted to show John bored with his marriage after just a month.

[BlackButterfly]

When Sherlock says John is abnormally attracted to dangerous People....

He means himself as well as Mary no?

When Sherlock says because you chose her ....he also means you didn't chose me?

When Irene says jealous and look at us both she parallels her feelings for Sherlock to Johns.

All these comparisons about John and Sherlocks relationship are romantic ones.

Sherlock in a courtroom saying not you to all those women and concluding its always you John Watson. Maybe some subtext there ?

[T.o.b.y]

As for a tender world, I have my objections as a female: we already outlive and outnumber them, if they become intoverted and rely on same-sex gratification, will the next generations of females go out male-hunting just to ensure the survival of the species? Or do you fancy your putative grand-daughter as being part of a man's harem, because there will be so few of the other species to "service" all of the young females of their generation? By all means, let's progress backwards to medieval Islam and the Mongol dynasties in India and China!

 

Um... what makes you think that in a more tolerant, less label-obsessed (possibly also less sex-obsessed, too) world the men would flock together and leave us ladies frustrated on our own? Most men are by nature very much attracted to women, it is only a small percentage for whom this is not the case, and for every man mostly attracted to other men there is probably a woman mostly attracted to other women, so I really don't see any cause to worry about my unborn descendants' love life. It should all even out, more or less.

 

Agree thats what happens on screen but is not what is happening in the subtext.

 

Well, it's next to impossible to say for sure what happens on a subtextual level, isn't it? I mean, the whole point is that subtext relies heavily on interpretation and everyones interpretation is different. For example:

 

A simple and obvious way they show us John is uncomfortable in his marriage and maybe even the marriage bed.

We see John on the bed suicidal and depressed etc in Pink

Lieing awake and worried /thoughtful next to Mary after SH return

Having nightmares about the war and Sherlock in hlv.

 

look at the colours -set design-lighting etc.

Its deliberate its simple its obvious.Its pretty standard stuff in film direction.

 

Why weren't John and Mary shown happily making breakfast or something when the neighbout visited..they wanted to show John bored with his marriage after just a month.

 

Did they? I'm not so sure... My take is more that they meant to show John is still unable to adjust to a quiet, regular civilian life. He needs something out of the ordinary on a regular basis, something dangerous and adventurous that allows him to use his full potential. That point could well be made just to show how the "real" Mary is actually a much better match for him than the "perfect" nurse / housewife / expectant mother he deliberately chose, it doesn't necessarily have to have anything to do with Sherlock. In fact, if you follow this idea through, then it means that by the end of His Last Vow, Sherlock is superfluous: John has it all now. Domesticity, a family, a home and excitement, adventure, danger all in one person he can also sleep with - perfect. Sherlock can get on the plane - there are "other players now".

 

I think that is what really makes the end of series 3 so sad. And that is why we need Moriarty now to show that Sherlock Holmes will always be needed. His job with the Watsons might be done, but England is still in need of a hero.

 

(Of course his job with the Watsons isn't done. Mary still must have enemies out there, and as long as she is around neither she nor John nor their child will ever be safe. If we ever do get series 4, I think Sherlock will find he's still very much needed on the home front as well as by the nation at large...)

[BlackButterfly]

Yes toby thats the way the series three story goes....

Wheres the happy with Mary or perfect Mary -scenes /subtext From what are we supposed to get a subtextual message that Marys dangerous and going to continue assasinating people and taking John with her on her adventures and baby can come too when Sherlocks not around .?

That Mary is a bit like Sherlock is there in the Baker St scene and thats the sad ish ending on the surface....but I can't think of any happy to be with Mary subtext.

John doesn't want her to come to the drugs den..and on the blog he writes Mary insisted on coming..about the case they all go on.

Does he want Mary to be like that , does he want to adventure and solve cases with Mary..I don't think we get that or that we will in 04.

 

edit addition - the bed scene subtext at the start of hlv was used because its simple and was proved true later.Something was wrong with John and Marys marriage - things we dont know and find out later that maybe change this should be reflected in later scenes like -John tells Mary he won't read the memory stick - he won't /doesn't want to stop loving her.etc. but aren't really relevant to the subtext of the nightmare scene .

[Inge l-w]

Dear Boton, when does Sherlock call Mycroft gay? Have I been watching a different series all this time?

If you are thinking of his response to Dr Watson's question "here to see the Queen?" then only Mr Gatiss made something of that remark in the commentary to SiB.

[Boton]

Dear Boton, when does Sherlock call Mycroft gay? Have I been watching a different series all this time?

If you are thinking of his response to Dr Watson's question "here to see the Queen?" then only Mr Gatiss made something of that remark in the commentary to SiB.

 

I'd have to go back to the SiB commentary because I've only listened to it once, so you may remember something I'm forgetting that Gatiss said.

 

That said, two instances (hope my quotes are close):

• "Here to see the Queen..."  "Apparently so."
• "You've never spoken to a woman with short hair, or, you know, a woman."

Like I said, nothing iron clad.  Just like Mycroft's "alarmed about sex" comment isn't iron clad.  But I think both of those indicate what the two brothers used to taunt one another:  Mycroft called Sherlock inexperienced, and Sherlock called Mycroft gay (or something related to that).

 

I think this indicates some substance of the truth, if not the whole or current truth for each guys.  Sherlock may not still be a virgin, but he probably still stings with the idea of relative inexperience.  Mycroft may or may not be gay, but he can still be tweaked by accusations.

 

But I think that this line of teasing is one indication that Sherlock is not, in fact, gay, because (wait for it....):  If Mycroft thought for a second that Sherlock thought an accusation of being gay was a taunt, you can bet Mycroft is not above saying, "Oh, Sherlock, if I'm the Queen, you should talk!"  

 

Seriously, Mycroft would have turned the "insult" back around on him if that were available to do to Sherlock.  The fact that he didn't is an indication that there's no truth there.

[Boton]

A simple and obvious way they show us John is uncomfortable in his marriage and maybe even the marriage bed.

We see John on the bed suicidal and depressed etc in Pink

Lieing awake and worried /thoughtful next to Mary after SH return

Having nightmares about the war and Sherlock in hlv.

 

look at the colours -set design-lighting etc.

Its deliberate its simple its obvious.Its pretty standard stuff in film direction.

 

Why weren't John and Mary shown happily making breakfast or something when the neighbout visited..they wanted to show John bored with his marriage after just a month.

 

 

(I should have put this in my post above so as to not post sequentially, but I didn't and now I don't know how.  Sorry.)

 

I really like this bit of analysis, but I respectfully disagree on its meaning.  To me, it mean only that John has come as far as he has since SiP - gaining a wife and a home and a baby on the way - but what keeps the nightmares at bay is his exciting life solving crimes.  I don't think it means that John is uncomfortable with Mary, but simply that he is incomplete without Sherlock.  And he can solve that without having a romantic or sexual attraction to him, simply by rejoining him.

 

(So, I think it's subtext-as-counterpoint once again.)

[BlackButterfly]

@Boton I think we actually agree.

The addition of Mary shows yes shes there now and then the dream is almost the same but Sherlocks there...he misses the war and he misses Sherlock , Mary@ marriage isn't enough .

There isn't anything sexual here imo - but I do think its kind of funny he's sleeping with Mary but dreaming of Sherlock.

 

In the wider subtex and visuals througout 03 though - everything is wrongish -take Baker St -it looks horrible ,awkward camera angles, bad lighting ,familiar music in the wrong key , the missing chair , Janine refers to it as the skuzz? dump and John doesn't know where the tea is.

When Marys there , theres not just the horns above her head set up , but the wall is lit a very wrong sickly green behind her.Stag night is cosy but when ...the client turns up she has the chair and Sherlock and John the sofa..not their usual chairs ..like they are the clients ...and then Johns chair vanishes. etc etc

 

They use it very cleverly in loads of places and to show lots of things.Sorry to ramble a bit there -and that was just on 221b - but everything is set up in an observable unspoken way to tell the wrong apart story.Which seems very obvious.....but I also see the Mary@John wrong together clues.I am biased with Mary I admit the - John will like Mary more now he knows she has kilked people and shot Sherlock - is beyond my understanding....May as well talk about why Johns started cycling to work.

[BlackButterfly]

Maybe Marys dull grey coat doesn't make her just that bit dimmer than Sherlock and, maybe Marys flashy red coat with the pink bling on the side doesn't make her just that bit more dangerous than Sherlock and ,maybe wearing that darker blue dressing gown to inappropriate places is just as good as wearing a sheet to Buckingham palace. Maybe if Mary keeps immitating Sherlock John will become just as happy as he used to be.

Maybe that IS what John likes, maybe thats why Sherlock immitates Mary and gave up the clever lark and took up the Shooting lark...but I don't think John actually liked that.

Maybe thats all coincidental and the creative directors and designers are just lucky at awards.

[Arcadia]

 I don't really understand the pov of people that - don't see anything at all ....

I can't say that I don't see anything at all. But I can say that I have no idea what you are talking about in several of the references you make (Phallic symbols? John's mouth? "Inappropriate" dressing gown?  Huh?)

 

Why don't I see them? Maybe it's partly because I don't want to? I've never liked sexual innuendo of any kind, as I find it somewhat demeaning to the person on the receiving end of it. Or maybe it's because I don't want Sherlock to be about sexual relationships, I want it to be about a man who is a detective? Or ... the status of gays is highly political, and I don't want to see this show become politicized? Stuff like that.

 

Isn't it equally possible that some of the subtext people see ... they see it because they want to see it? Because some people want every story to be a romance story, for example? Or because others DO want their favorite show to take a political stand? Stuff like that.

 

Also, there's what I've said in reponse to Caya (below) ...

 

About five seconds of googling found me a host of articles like this one about why some Gen X (which John is if he shares Mr. Freeman's age) are late bloomers when it comes to coming out. John's been in the military, which is an additional deterrent. No, personally I don't believe he's gay either, but if he were, there would still be reasons for him not to come out after Sherlock's supposed death.

 

eta: As for Sherlock? No idea. Anything's possible with his level of repression/asexuality (take your pick).

I agree with you about men (and women) in real life ... coming out is still going to be hard for many of them, unless they have some kind of security in their lives (whether it be relationships, wealth, or whatever.) The risks are still pretty high.

 

But in film ... unless that's what the story is about, it is no longer "politically correct", nor necessary, to hide a character's sexual orientation. And I would be pretty hard put to say that Sherlock is about an ex-military man learning to accept his own sexuality.

 

What bothers me is that the principals categorically deny that Sherlock is gay. So if the subtext is real and deliberate, then that's disturbingly hypocritical of them. I know that's possible, but I don't want to believe it. I'd rather believe that it's the interpretations that are wrong, not that my beloved cast and creators are gay-baiting. Color me wilfully naive, I guess.

 

Dear Boton, when does Sherlock call Mycroft gay? Have I been watching a different series all this time?

If you are thinking of his response to Dr Watson's question "here to see the Queen?" then only Mr Gatiss made something of that remark in the commentary to SiB.

Just in case the clarification is needed... "queen" can be slang for "gay man", particularly if the man is rather effeminate. So; "Are we here to see the queen?" "Apparently yes," means that Sherlock is saying Mycroft acts gay.

[Inge l-w]

Dear Boton, amid all the sniggering and giggling of that sequence in SiB, Mr Gatiss said to Mr Moffat : "I still don't believe I let you get away with this, the implications..." and Mr Moffat, always careless of his toys, even if it is his own collaborator replies "Totally had you there! I not only wrote it in but made you perform it"

Shows the level of respect he has of his creation and of his actors in one succinct sentence!

P.S Dear Arcadia, thanks for the clarification, but I knew the slang of that by about age sixteen. I have said somewhere in this vast place that our English education was as Camford/Oxbridge as you could get in another country, including pronunciation! The language lab sessions for pronunciation drills were sheer torture/pleasure!

[Shadow Dweller]

:p Good, I like a man with sense of humour. Serious all the time make Steven a very dull person (it is bad for health too).

[Van Buren Supernova]

And I'm always wondering why it's difficult to accept platonic relationship in TV.

 

But hey, it's hiatus I guess.

[J.P.]

A bit OT, because I gave up talking about subtext - as it is totally subjective and resistent against the pure, cold reason I hold above all things.

 

That said, two instances (hope my quotes are close):

• "You've never spoken to a woman with short hair, or, you know, a woman."

 
Well, that's a really weird statement. What about Anthea? Does Sherlock see her as another Ice(wo)man?

[BlackButterfly]

Perhaps it's just a generational or culteral thing.

Probably not many people notice the bar scene in TSOT is lit to be an exact replica of the bisexual flag or that the colours of the Bomb in TEH flash with exactly the same colours or giggle when they think about John seeing a trick cyclist and cycling to work and that the invisible man is named Johnathon Small and that there's a huge penis shaped ornament in the mayfly mans flat. Probably the subtext story doesn't matter for most people and isn't necessary to be entertained because the regular text is enough.

[Boton]

@Boton I think we actually agree.

The addition of Mary shows yes shes there now and then the dream is almost the same but Sherlocks there...he misses the war and he misses Sherlock , Mary@ marriage isn't enough .

There isn't anything sexual here imo - but I do think its kind of funny he's sleeping with Mary but dreaming of Sherlock.

 

In the wider subtex and visuals througout 03 though - everything is wrongish -take Baker St -it looks horrible ,awkward camera angles, bad lighting ,familiar music in the wrong key , the missing chair , Janine refers to it as the skuzz? dump and John doesn't know where the tea is.

When Marys there , theres not just the horns above her head set up , but the wall is lit a very wrong sickly green behind her.Stag night is cosy but when ...the client turns up she has the chair and Sherlock and John the sofa..not their usual chairs ..like they are the clients ...and then Johns chair vanishes. etc etc

 

 

Yes, I think we do agree.   :D I think a lot of the subtext, especially the stuff you really picked up on, is to communicate that "life is just wrong when Sherlock and John aren't together."  And it doesn't have to be any more complicated than that.  The boys need each other, period.

 

Dear Boton, amid all the sniggering and giggling of that sequence in SiB, Mr Gatiss said to Mr Moffat : "I still don't believe I let you get away with this, the implications..." and Mr Moffat, always careless of his toys, even if it is his own collaborator replies "Totally had you there! I not only wrote it in but made you perform it"

 

 

I love these hints to the Moffatt/Gatiss relationship.  I think, at heart, Gatiss is the far more serious and intellectual of the pair, and Moffatt is fundamentally 12 years old.  When they work together, that's just magic.  I notice that on the few Dr. Who episodes where I know both have played a part in the creation.

 

And I'm always wondering why it's difficult to accept platonic relationship in TV.

 

But hey, it's hiatus I guess.

 

Also, I think it's difficult to portray platonic affection in a way that people understand in fiction.  Sexual and romantic love have actual activities that support the perception -- holding hands, behaving a certain way in one another's space, kissing, and a host of other things.  And we know how to pick up on those things.  Look at how true the John/Mary interactions feel since they are imbued with the reality of MF/AA's RL relationship, even if you don't know about that (I didn't on the first viewing) or even if the actors aren't trying to use that.  Or look at how so many of us picked up on the physical comfort between OP and BC in TBB, even if we didn't know about their relationship at the time.  Human beings are wired to understand these cues.

 

It's harder to come up with what the cues for a platonic love would be, maybe in part because it would take so many different forms.  So we're reduced to really grand gestures, like Sherlock shooting Magnussen, as a way to demonstrate platonic love.  And, in reality, it's more plausible to think that Sherlock and John would kill for each other, but they communicate the platonic love day to day by being sure to order each other's favorite take-away or keeping the tea jar stocked or something.  (Also good practices in romantic love, because not everything is hearts and flowers.)

 

I think that's why platonic/gen fan fic writers write so much about John coaxing Sherlock into eating.  Tending to another's basic biological needs is a very human way of communicating love, and if you aren't going to write the two having sex, writing the two caring for one another's eating is a very appropriate substitute.

[BlackButterfly]

Amusing on the domestic note Boton , there's a lot of that in canon and also all those descriptively flowery nature walks , so your probably right.

 

Another subtetxty thing from TGG is when Moriarty says he is going to burn the heart out of Sherlock , the implication is that John is Sherlocks heart. So far so obvious. Yet in TRF and TEH and to an extent in HLV the person /heart thats really getting burnt - is John.

Do all the villains really lead back to Moriarty.

Hope , Shan , JimfromIT , Irene , Dr whatsit, Jim again , Moran , Magnussen ,John Small ( he didn't want to be clever ) , Mary? .

How does Moriarty burn Sherlocks heart - through John.

[Arcadia]

A bit OT, because I gave up talking about subtext - as it is totally subjective and resistant against the pure, cold reason I hold above all things.

I shall endeavor -- after this post :P -- to do the same.

 

I wondered about Anthea too, but figured Sherlock just said whatever he thought would annoy Mycroft. Because that's what brothers DO.

 

Perhaps it's just a generational or cultural thing.

Probably not many people notice the bar scene in TSOT is lit to be an exact replica of the bisexual flag or that the colours of the Bomb in TEH flash with exactly the same colours or giggle when they think about John seeing a trick cyclist and cycling to work and that the invisible man is named Johnathon Small and that there's a huge penis shaped ornament in the mayfly mans flat. Probably the subtext story doesn't matter for most people and isn't necessary to be entertained because the regular text is enough.

Well, one reason I didn't notice the lights on the bomb being blue, pink & purple is because ... no they aren't! At least, not on my TV. And those colors also appear in the logo for Monster energy drinks, so maybe the subtext is actually "Buy Monster?" And in the bar scene, there's purple and pink ... and also, inconveniently, quite a lot of yellow ... why doesn't it count?

 

Is subtext really subtext when only a select few can see it? Or when no one agrees what things mean? I don't know! It's an interesting question, though.

 

 

 

Dear Boton, amid all the sniggering and giggling of that sequence in SiB, Mr Gatiss said to Mr Moffat : "I still don't believe I let you get away with this, the implications..." and Mr Moffat, always careless of his toys, even if it is his own collaborator replies "Totally had you there! I not only wrote it in but made you perform it"

 

I love these hints to the Moffatt/Gatiss relationship.  I think, at heart, Gatiss is the far more serious and intellectual of the pair, and Moffatt is fundamentally 12 years old.  When they work together, that's just magic.  I notice that on the few Dr. Who episodes where I know both have played a part in the creation.

 

I keep wanting to ask them which one of them is Holmes, and which one is Watson. :D

[BlackButterfly]

Arcadia. The whole time John is stood at the bar , ordering tbe shot , and saying he mustn't see-there is no yellow. What colours and in what proportions /top/middle/ bottom do you see?

Qns also the bomb flashing ? Several hundred people have twittered and posted images on Google etc Some think the bomb even looks like a heart .

This thread is entitled..tell us what you see and thats very interesting because

as Arwel Wyn Jones said " if it's on screen it's meant to be looked at in a meaningful way"

@According to Mycroft there are no coincidences...only fake personas and lies which indicate planning and intelligence and that..somethings going to happen.

I don't think we get Monster drinks in the UK? Never heard.

[Arcadia]

I'd have to watch the episode again to see what you mean, but how long does this scene last? In a 90 minute episode, why are the colors in that few seconds any more significant than, say, the several minutes of yellow we see during the wedding reception? Yellow is the color of joy, happiness, hope, etc., why is that not meaningful? Some people think the bomb looks like a heart, but I think it looks like a tortured vacuum cleaner. Why is my perception less valid than theirs?

 

Again, I'm not saying you're wrong -- and Mr. Jones may indeed be inserting messages into the show that his bosses are unaware of. I'm just asking you to give fair consideration to the idea that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

BTW, in Burma yellow is the color of mourning. Can you imagine their reaction to the wedding? :D

[BlackButterfly]

Arcadia. The scene lasts the whole time.John buys the shot he drinks it he says -he mustn't see-tips in the other shot and walks back to Sherlock they clink glasses and says cheers.

Cut to new scene. The colouration lasts the whole time.It must have been complex to set up and time and film in such a way. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar yes.But this very same team hung around waited until it got dark In order to film Sherlock passing the millennium wheel when it was lit up in a rainbow for gay pride parade/week...so on the balance of probability....I think they know.

What it means for John is of course subtext interpretation , but likely they are sending out messages of support to those countries that are still lacking in equal rights and that show Sherlock ?

Thats kind of cool don't you think? As for Burma....you've lost me sorry? Are they one of those places. IDK.

[BlackButterfly]

Oh LOLSorry wedding-Mourning.

I thought it was more a ref.to the giallo film trope...HLV was quite femme fatal- noir and I know Gatiss talked a lot about Giallo in his documentary.

 

Yikes....sorry Burma!

[Arcadia]

.... but likely they are sending out messages of support to those countries that are still lacking in equal rights and that show Sherlock ?

Thats kind of cool don't you think?

Well, if that's what they're doing, that would be kind of cool. But then why deny it? That's what bothers me.

[Shadow Dweller]

*Reading about the dos & don'ts of etiquette of conversation with new acquaintance- how to be a polite conversationalist when it come to politics and personal judgement and the must-avoid pitfalls*