Episode 2.1, "A Scandal In Belgravia"

[besleybean]

We see the driver in shot, don't we?

[f1madman]

Wait so did Sherlock travel to Afghanistan to save the Woman and no one noticed?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Apparently.  Maybe he pretended to lock himself in his bedroom for a few days, which is probably pretty normal behavior for him.  (It was Pakistan, though -- Karachi.)

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Even in canon Dr. Watson commented that when on a case Sherlock might not be seen for days on end never telling anyone that he was going or what he did when he got back.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think it's in "The Beryl Coronet" (which I am reading at the moment), or possibly in "The Noble Bachelor" (which I read just before that), but just since I posted the above, I have run into one instance of Holmes staying in bed for several days at a stretch, and one remark of Watson's that he didn't worry if Holmes was late getting back from a case, because he sometimes didn't come back for several days.

 

So, yeah, who would notice if he popped off to Karachi?

 

[Roseann1to3]

I sort of thought that might have been a fantasy SH created in his mind. That whole scene where SH saves IA felt off- balance to me.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Interesting thought. In the commentary Cumberbatch says something about only one man knowing the truth but it was romantic. So, I suppose it could have been a romantic dream.....if Sherlock is capable of having those. Personally, I think he might. I also think he is also capable of haring off and saving her.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Roseann1to3, you're the second person to propose that it was a fantasy (with the other post being somewhere earlier on this thread), and I've not yet seen any conclusive proof that it wasn't.  That scene is somewhat dreamlike, not to mention bizarre.

 

I've changed my mind several times, but my current thinking is that either he really saved her as shown, or else (my favorite theory to date) Mycroft's other story was true, she got into some sort of witness protection program and the rescue was Sherlock's daydream.  I'm certain that she was NOT killed, because I don't see how Sherlock could have enjoyed his fantasy if that were the case -- he may be socially awkward, but I don't see him as mean-spirited.

 

[Caya]

Ha! Found the interview!

 

Stephen Moffat says,

 

"Everyone else gets it that Irene wins. When Sherlock turns up to save her at the end it's like Eliza Dolittle coming back to Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady: 'OK, I like you, now let me hack up these terrorists with a big sword.'"

 

Since he wrote the episode, I guess it wasn't a dream sequence. Doesn't make it any less weird, though.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

In the interview it is stated rightly that there was no sexual tension between Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler in the canon. That seems to not be true as the original story was presented to Doyle's publishers. I have read that there was but the story was rejected because of it, the thinking that it was to risque for the Victorian reading public so Doyle took out thos bits and parts. Where are the original proofs then? I want to read them!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Wonder if Moftiss have read those bits?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

It would seem some one has. Billy Wilder's "Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes" certainly hinted at it. Sherlock was so shook up by her death that Dr. Watson even caves letting him resort to his cocaine.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I mentioned this a while back:
 

One of the dead people on the plane (the man with the long hair and mustache) looks to me a whole lot like the man who was sitting alone at the table behind Sherlock in "The Great Game" -- in the cafe scene, where John explained to Sherlock who Connie Prince was.

 

Thanks to aithine's screen caps, I'm finally able to A/B the two characters:
 

 

 

What do y'all think?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

That's to funny. It certainly does look like him.

[Carol the Dabbler]

In the other thread, I conjectured that Moriarty had him killed because he had overheard Sherlock and John talking about Connie Prince.  

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I read "The Illustrious Client" last night (after watching the Jeremy Brett episode), and even though Moftiss didn't lift the actual plot of that story, they certainly borrowed one major theme for "Scandal in Belgravia" -- namely, the "who is my client" question (which in the original story isn't answered till the very end, when Watson discovers that it's King Edward VII).  As in the original, the monarch hires Holmes to protect a young woman.  They even adapted a complete sentence of Holmes's dialog:

 

From ACD:  "I am accustomed to having a mystery at one end of my cases, but to have it at both ends is too confusing."

 

From SiB:  "I’m used to mystery at one end of my cases. Both ends is too much work."  [quote from Ariane DeVere's transcript.]

[T.o.b.y]

Ha! Found the interview!

 

Stephen Moffat says,

 

"Everyone else gets it that Irene wins. When Sherlock turns up to save her at the end it's like Eliza Dolittle coming back to Henry Higgins in My Fair Lady: 'OK, I like you, now let me hack up these terrorists with a big sword.'"

 

Since he wrote the episode, I guess it wasn't a dream sequence. Doesn't make it any less weird, though.

 

I'm glad Moffat said that was the intended effect, because I got that exact impression of how Irene and Sherlock ended and it's nice to have understood something correctly. Irene won. She made Sherlock fall in love with her, and, as Sherlock says, that means being "on the losing side". His whole bitter speech when he leaves the airplane could be just as much about his own feelings as Irene's.

 

The quote from Moffat does not necessarily mean the rescue scene is supposed to have actually taken place (although it is just the kind of whacky plot that Conan Doyle would have come up with). It is the emotional truth that matters - Sherlock fantasizing about saving her is just as great a victory for Irene as him actually doing it. 

 

I'm not sure what the writers intended, but I much prefer a version where Irene got away on her own, let Mycroft believe she had been killed in Karachi and went on to live as happily as she can wherever she likes, while Sherlock is left dreaming about her and casting himself in the role of the knight in shining armor.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm not sure what the writers intended, but I much prefer a version where Irene got away on her own, let Mycroft believe she had been killed in Karachi and went on to live as happily as she can wherever she likes, while Sherlock is left dreaming about her and casting himself in the role of the knight in shining armor.

 

I had been favoring "Mycroft's witness-protection story was actually the true one, and the Karachi rescue was Sherlock's fantasy" -- but I like your version too!  In any case, we seem to agree that Irene isn't dead (or at least that Sherlock doesn't know she is), because he's not a sufficiently heartless bastard to have such a happy little moment in that case.

 

Hmm, now I'm wondering about the point of that whole Mycroft-John-Sherlock scene.  I've been thinking for a while now that Sherlock and Mycroft were in cahoots on the "fall," and that their collaboration must have started some time before "Reichenbach."  So -- if they were already working together during this episode, Mycroft's little confession session was actually for John's benefit.  Therefore Irene's death in Karachi was definitely a lie!

 

[T.o.b.y]

 

Hmm, now I'm wondering about the point of that whole Mycroft-John-Sherlock scene.  I've been thinking for a while now that Sherlock and Mycroft were in cahoots on the "fall," and that their collaboration must have started some time before "Reichenbach."  So -- if they were already working together during this episode, Mycroft's little confession session was actually for John's benefit.  Therefore Irene's death in Karachi was definitely a lie!

 

 

I think Mycroft was led to believe that Irene died in Karachi. He wondered whether that was the right thing to tell his brother, though, so he made up the story about the witness protection program and got John to put that before Sherlock. Sherlock however knew via Irene that she was actually alive, either because he had really been to Karachi to rescue her or, my preferred version, because she had let him know in some way (text message, e-mail, some snippet of news he was able to interpret correctly). She also ended their "relationship" or whatever it was, because the last he heard from her was "good bye Mr Holmes".

 

About Mycroft and Sherlock collaborating: I just don't want that. Sorry, I'm not open to reason or logic on this point, I resent the fact that my dear great genius detective is supposed to have a superior older brother whom he depends on. It belittles him and I just don't like it (although I love Mark Gatiss in this role and would really miss him if he left the show as an actor - if he left as a writer / creator I would, too).

 

I'm hoping against hope that it will turn out the writers ignored the source on this one and let Sherlock stage and survive the fall without Mycrofts knowledge or assistance. I would be even happier if it turned out Mycroft didn't even know he was alive.

 

But, Carol, I'm afraid you're right. At least I get to dream on until January.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I think Mycroft was led to believe that Irene died in Karachi. He wondered whether that was the right thing to tell his brother, though, so he made up the story about the witness protection program and got John to put that before Sherlock. Sherlock however knew via Irene that she was actually alive, either because he had really been to Karachi to rescue her or, my preferred version, because she had let him know in some way (text message, e-mail, some snippet of news he was able to interpret correctly). She also ended their "relationship" or whatever it was, because the last he heard from her was "good bye Mr Holmes".

 

Yes, that's all very plausible, Mycroft may have been fooled.  In the rescue scenario, "Goodbye Mr Holmes" is the message that Irene sends just before she's about to be "executed."  But of course if that was Sherlock's fantasy, then how did it get on her phone -- who knows?

 

About Mycroft and Sherlock collaborating: I just don't want that. Sorry, I'm not open to reason or logic on this point, I resent the fact that my dear great genius detective is supposed to have a superior older brother whom he depends on. It belittles him and I just don't like it (although I love Mark Gatiss in this role and would really miss him if he left the show as an actor - if he left as a writer / creator I would, too).

 

Not trying to persuade you -- there are certain things where I'm not open to reason myself.  But in my mind, the collaboration doesn't belittle Sherlock.  It's just that different people have different specialties, and sometimes Sherlock relies on other people for things he's either not an expert on or doesn't want to be bothered with, or things that simply need an extra pair of hands.  For example, he does appear to rely on Molly for certain things in "Reichenbach," and he often relies on John.  I will admit, though, that Mycroft's help might be a little harder to stomach, what with the way he smirks!

 

[T.o.b.y]

Not trying to persuade you -- there are certain things where I'm not open to reason myself.  But in my mind, the collaboration doesn't belittle Sherlock.  It's just that different people have different specialties, and sometimes Sherlock relies on other people for things he's either not an expert on or doesn't want to be bothered with, or things that simply need an extra pair of hands.  For example, he does appear to rely on Molly for certain things in "Reichenbach," and he often relies on John.  I will admit, though, that Mycroft's help might be a little harder to stomach, what with the way he smirks!

 

As I said, reason has nothing to do with it: While I would hate to see Sherlock depending on somebody who is stronger than him, like Mycroft, I was really happy to see him going to Molly for help. As for his relying on John, well, that's sort of what John is for, right? I certainly don't want Sherlock to be infallible and 100% independent of other people (although I'm sure that's what he would want). I just have a problem with Mycroft looming over him.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Ah, yes, the "looming" -- I can see that as a problem for Sherlock, certainly, considering that Mycroft is not only the big brother, but apparently has always had a quasi-parental attitude toward his younger sibling.  If Sherlock did need Mycroft's help in any integral sort of way, that background would surely be a major stumbling block, as both of them have already hinted.

 

Well, then, if Sherlock and Mycroft DID work closely together on the fall and its aftermath, it'll be interesting to see how Moftiss justify their sudden (?) ability to get along.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

OK, I'm gonna disagree with myself a bit.  Even though Sherlock and Mycroft don't get along, that's between the two of them, within the family.

 

When it comes to Family vs. World, however, I can certainly see them standing shoulder to shoulder -- then, once the external threat is dealt with, they'll go back to their petty squabbling.

 

[T.o.b.y]

In that case, I hope it was at least Mycroft who offered assistance and not Sherlock who had to plead for it. And Mycroft might have thrown in one or two apologies while he was speaking to his brother. Because I do believe he sold part of Sherlock's story to Moriarty. If nothing he told him was true, then why did John think it was? He says about Kitty "she has really done her homework" and claims that she knows stuff only someone close to Sherlock would know. Is John so stupid that he believes anything Kitty publishes is necessarily the truth? Because if not, he must be able to verify at least some of her statements or he would not have made that comment.

[Carol the Dabbler]

John doesn't seem to be a born skeptic, no.  Both Mycroft and Sherlock appeared to be taking Kitty Riley's expose at face value, so why shouldn't he?

 

I suspect that Mycroft told Moriarty a pack of cleverly designed lies.