Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[Dexter]

Nice signature line, Dexter!

 

Thanks, it came into my mind by itself. Though others had the same idea I figured.

Well she does look really cute....

[Dexter]

Don't laugh -- I've seen people do it!

 

I've seen Mr. Bean doing that :-)

[Fledermaus]

Two questions bother me:

 

1.) Who is the royal Mycroft tries to protect?

2.) How does Irene Adler manage to smuggle her phone into Holmes' flat, covered as a present?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Who is the royal Mycroft tries to protect?

 

She is officially described only as "a young female person ... of significance to" Sherlock's anonymous client (though we are clearly expected to believe that said client is the Queen). Since this is apparently the same young woman whom Irene addressed earlier as "Your Highness," she may actually be a member of the Royal Family.

 

Even if we do narrow down the possibilities by assuming that she is a member of the Royal Family, though, that still leaves quite a list of candidates -- all of the Queen's descendants, of course, but (near as I understand it) also the descendants of her sister and cousins. In addition (if we discount Irene's talk as mere role-playing), young persons "of significance" to the Queen might also include the children or grandchildren of her staff, et al.

 

Since all of the above are real people, and therefore clearly not involved with the fictitious Irene Adler, I am certain that Moffat & Gatiss purposely and carefully made the references extremely vague!

[aely]

Two questions bother me:

 

2.) How does Irene Adler manage to smuggle her phone into Holmes' flat, covered as a present?

 

The minions did it (they obviously get to do things other than sorting out her hair while in cars).

[Fledermaus]

The minions did it (they obviously get to do things other than sorting out her hair while in cars).

 

And how did this minon manage to enter Holmes flat without being noticed?

Can one walk in and out in Baker Street so easy?

And would Holmes not notice that someone has been there?

[Fledermaus]

Just watched the episode again and wonder how Sherlock could get so much information about the palace employee just from his clothing.

I doubt that this were possible in real life.

[Dexter]

Since all of the above are real people, and therefore clearly not involved with the fictitious Irene Adler, I am certain that Moffat & Gatiss purposely and carefully made the references extremely vague!

 

I fully agree. It would have been no change to the plot if the member of the royal family was young male. (But what a discussion we'd now have).However, they clearly (intentionally) defined a "young female" which in reality does not exist. I would say it is the fictitious granddaughter of the Queen.

[aely]

And how did this minon manage to enter Holmes flat without being noticed?

Ummm...

invisibility cloak,

same way as Irene did - through the kitchen window but before the party started, while Sherlock and John were distracted

Mrs Hudson is really Irene Adler's great aunt and did it for her...

[Carol the Dabbler]

... PBS prides itself on offering "commercial-free television." ... though ... "commercial free" does not mean interruption-free. ... whatever these intervals are called, they do deprive American audiences of a certain percentage of Sherlock. Last night's cuts were skillfully done, as such things go (perhaps even done by the BBC itself) ....

 

It turns out the cuts were made by an even more capable entity. I just found this quote on the Baker Street Babes website (from a Q&A session at the New York City preview of "Scandal"):

 

The topic of how the American versions of Sherlock being cut slightly different from the British version came up. What I didn’t realize was that Hartswood Films are the ones who make the edits, not PBS, to fit in the time constraints. Benedict said he hates the edits. I think most Americans who are familiar with the British versions would agree. It’s always jarring when a favorite line or moment has been removed to keep the story moving.

I am glad that it's actually Hartswood doing the the cutting. I should have realized it would be them. I'm just sad that PBS insists on their cutting out so much.

[Carol the Dabbler]

When John enters the room in Buckingham Palace and sees Sherlock sitting there enveloped in a sheet, he asks, "Are you wearing any pants?" and Sherlock replies, "No."

 

I naturally heard this with my American ears. But I have recently been informed that in British usage, "pants" never means trousers, it means specifically underpants.

 

That bit suddenly got even funnier.

[Banshee]

When John enters the room in Buckingham Palace and sees Sherlock sitting there enveloped in a sheet, he asks, "Are you wearing any pants?" and Sherlock replies, "No."

 

I naturally heard this with my American ears. But I have recently been informed that in British usage, "pants" never means trousers, it means specifically underpants.

 

That bit suddenly got even funnier.

 

Same applies to Harry Potter and Ron's favourite line of "Merlin's pants!"

I think I've mentioned this elsewhere, but I think the whole "Sherlock in a sheet" is a reference to the way Sherlock would hang around the house in his robe all day, rather than get dressed. In Victorian times, that was, well, shocking and unthinkable. Now, not so much... but we get a similar effect from the "not even bothering to get dressed" attitude.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Same applies to Harry Potter and Ron's favourite line of "Merlin's pants!"

 

Oh, dear -- never thought of that. Now I'm picturing said "pants" as the long, old-fashioned kind, something like bloomers. And that's got to be either just the pants, or Merlin in the pants. (Don't really want to think about Merlin without the pants.)

 

I think you have a good point about the sheet / robe analogy. This episode was written by Steven Moffat, so it was probably intentional -- but if not, it was nicely serendipitous!

[Banshee]

Oh, dear -- never thought of that. Now I'm picturing said "pants" as the long, old-fashioned kind, something like bloomers. And that's got to be either just the pants, or Merlin in the pants. (Don't really want to think about Merlin without the pants.)

 

LOL Yeah, it is one of those American English vs British English differences that can lead to interesting (or embarrassing) moments

 

I think you have a good point about the sheet / robe analogy. This episode was written by Steven Moffat, so it was probably intentional -- but if not, it was nicely serendipitous!

 

I'm pretty sure it was intentional... Moffat is very good at doing things like that!

[Undead Medic]

LOL Yeah, it is one of those American English vs British English differences that can lead to interesting (or embarrassing) moments

 

And be careful when using the American term "Fanny" in Britain...

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

And be careful when using the American term "Fanny" in Britain...

 

Yeah, I know. We watched The Office, and I was educated by Big Keith.

 

(For those who don't know, in the U.S. "fanny" is a perfectly innocuous term for the buttocks, but in the U.K., well, let's just say it's something that only women have.)

 

Now I'm trying to break myself of using the word, in anticipation of our UK trip next year!

[Sherlockian]

This episode was my second favorite. I liked Irene much more here than I did in the Downey films.

I'm not big on music videos, but I saw this one that someone had posted on another forum and I just love it to bits.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm not big on music videos, but I saw this one that someone had posted on another forum and I just love it to bits.

 

Thanks for getting us out of the underwear department and back on topic, Sherlockian!

 

Due to poor sound quality at my end (cheap speakers, and slow sampling rate on our dial-up connection), I understood very few of the words (just enough to realize that the images were chosen to go along with them). But the images themselves were really beautiful, nicely selected.

[Sherlockian]

Glad you liked what you could hear of it. Yeah, dial up can be annoying. What I liked most what that it seemed to touch on every relationship. It managed to highlight Holmes and Watson, Holmes and Irene, Holmes, Watson, and Mrs. Hudson, Holmes and Molly, Holmes brothers, even Holmes brothers and Moriarty. I'm not a "shipper" of any particular sort, though I guess I am a traditionalist in that I believe Holmes and Watson are best friends of the very rarest sort.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well phrased. John & Sherlock's friendship is truly heart-warming. (And I figure if it happens to be any more than that, well, they're not talking, so it's none of my business.)

[CSIBakerStreet]

John says we already went through this. Well, whether we went through it or not, I can only say a few words about this. The Woman. The Woman. I've always assumed that love is a dangerous disadvantage. Thank you for the final proof, Ms. Adler.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I think the whole "Sherlock in a sheet" is a reference to the way Sherlock would hang around the house in his robe all day, rather than get dressed. In Victorian times, that was, well, shocking and unthinkable. Now, not so much... but we get a similar effect from the "not even bothering to get dressed" attitude.

OK, Banshee, this took me a while, but I think that your explanation of Sherlock's sheet (hmm, doesn't that sound like a good expletive? "Sherlock's sheet!" or maybe even "great Sherlock's sheet!") -- anyhow, your explanation may also *ahem* cover Irene's nudity and career.

 

In "A Scandal in Bohemia," Irene is an opera singer who has an affair with the King of Bohemia, and that's about all we know about her moral character. (His description of her as a "well-known adventuress" is not substantiated, nor is her statement that he "cruelly wronged" her.) In other words, the original Irene is pretty innocuous by today's standards, and I've been feeling that her Sherlock counterpart was way overdrawn.

 

Back then, however, I believe that professional performers (especially women) were held in low regard, as was anyone who actually admitted to having an affair. So Moffat apparently felt that it would take something pretty strong to have an equivalent impact on modern audiences. Even though making her a naked dominatrix may seem excessive, maybe that's what it takes these days. Maybe that's just Irene's "sheet." (On the other hand, Moffat did seem to be enjoying it an awful lot!)

 

One more thing -- in the commentary, Moftiss says there's no consensus as to whether Holmes calls Irene "the woman" or "the woman" -- so they had Sherlock say it both ways. But in both the first and last sentences of the original story, Watson records it as "the woman."

[Carol the Dabbler]

This just occurred to me -- after the CIA intruders are subdued, John finds Irene's assistant unconscious on the bedroom floor. Did the CIA do it? (We did first see them coming down the stairs.) Or had Irene done it earlier, with the same drug she later uses on Sherlock?

Edited September 18, 2012 by Carol the Dabbler

[metobillc]

I loved the episode, except for the very end. Then my wife pointed out that she thought the ending was simply Sherlock's fantasy of saving Irene, rather than its literal occurrence. I find that a much more satisfying ending, and am curious what other viewers think.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hello, metobillc -- welcome to Sherlock Forum!

 

I had never thought of that possibility, but your wife has a point -- the whole scene does seem sort of surrealistic. But some things puzzle me either way.

 

Supposing the scene was to be taken literally: How did Sherlock know that Irene was in danger? Did he somehow get the information from Mycroft without letting on that he meant to save her? How did he fool Mycroft into believing that she was dead?

 

Or, supposing the rescue was Sherlock's fantasy: Did Irene really die, then, and if so, how was Sherlock able to enjoy the fantasy?

 

In either case, one explanation would be that Mycroft was lying to John (in whole or in part) -- but why? Of course, I've probably missed a whole assortment of other possible explanations.

 

How do you see it?