Episode 2.3, "The Reichenbach Fall"

[Julia Mae]

 

  I'm also intrigued by Sherlock's use of the word "living" -- what if Moriarty was one of Carl's classmates, but disappeared by faking  his own death and changing his name?

 

Exactly!  It struck me the moment he said it in that episode, probably because as a writer I am so acutely aware of language choices.  So either they were planting a red-herring - though it's awfully subtle for one, or I'd bet money that the first faked death was Moriarty's. 

 

On your laptop along the side or back should be a little round hole.  That's where you put the headphones.  They are super-cheap, Walmart has some for like $8-12.  

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

It struck me the moment he said it in that episode, probably because as a writer I am so acutely aware of language choices.  So either they were planting a red-herring - though it's awfully subtle for one, or I'd bet money that the first faked death was Moriarty's.

Pink herring?

 

Sherlock is written by writers, so it does seem unlikely that the choice of words was accidental -- whatever that may mean.

 

 

On your laptop along the side or back should be a little round hole.  That's where you put the headphones.  They are super-cheap, Walmart has some for like $8-12.

 

Thanks for the info.  I shall check into that!

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Oh well, I was close.

 

[Alex the Dabbler]

Here's a link to a Radio Times interview with Una Stubbs that suggests that even Benedict Cumberbatch doesn't know how Sherlock survived in this episode: http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2013-07-08/una-stubbs-im-not-sure-benedict-cumberbatch-knows-how-sherlock-comes-back

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I'm not sure just how recent that interview actually was.  But I wouldn't be at all surprised if Moftiss had kept even Cumberbatch in the dark as long as possible.  And of course there may still be parts that won't really click until everything's edited together.

 

Did you notice that she's going to be in an episode of Who Do You Think You Are soon?  Hopefully someone will put that on YouTube!

 

[Alex the Dabbler]

Yes, it's probable that the Una Stubbs interview was done a few months ago.  I would think that Cumberbatch now knows how Sherlock survived!

[Julia Mae]

My question:

Who is that Guy at the Bottom?

The top image is the picture in the file Mycroft shows John at his club.

The second image is of Sherlock just after the man saves him from being hit by a bus and a frame before he is shot dead.  It's obvious that the top two are the same guy, so he is now dead.

The third is in Mrs. Hudson's apartment while Sherlock is on the roof of Saint Bart's.  In fact, he showed up at 221B while John was off talking to Mycroft at the Diogenes Club.  We are supposed, apparently, to believe he is ready to assassinate Mrs. Hudson if Sherlock doesn't jump from the roof of Saint Bart's.

But how would he know?  He'll get a call on his mobile, presumably.  If so, why does he need his gun within inches of his hand in his toolbox with the lid open?  Just for the convenience of the camera?  Or is he protector rather than assassin?

Why is this Guy on the Stairway?

It seems as if we are supposed to think he is there to kill John.  But he was one of the "assassins" Mycroft showed to John, and they were all supposed to be sent by potential customers of Moriarty's for his computer code. 

They protect Sherlock while trying to find the secret code. Are we supposed to assume Moriarty hired him away from his original handler and set him up to kill John?

 

 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

That's for Moftiss to know, and for us to -- well, try to figure out!

 

But I'm trying not to wrack my brains too hard!  

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Watching "Reichenbach" again, trying to be analytical instead of just getting lost in The Wonder of It All (and not succeeding terribly well).

 

It just occurred to me that Sherlock must have known exactly what was going to happen when he pulled John out in front of that bus.  He knew that somebody would shoot that man.  Also, if he already knew that the "computer key code" was a hoax (which I'm increasingly certain that he did), then his main reason for initiating that exchange must have been to reinforce the idea in John's head.

 

[Julia Mae]

Watching "Reichenbach" again, trying to be analytical instead of just getting lost in The Wonder of It All (and not succeeding terribly well).

 

It just occurred to me that Sherlock must have known exactly what was going to happen when he pulled John out in front of that bus.  He knew that somebody would shoot that man.  Also, if he already knew that the "computer key code" was a hoax (which I'm increasingly certain that he did), then his main reason for initiating that exchange must have been to reinforce the idea in John's head.

 

I understand the problem.  I'm always watching to look for something specific and then I have to yell at myself: STOP WATCHING IT! 

 

My feeling about the hoax is that Sherlock did know there couldn't be any such code, and certainly Mycroft would know, but with the bus incident, he proves an hypothesis that Moriarty told them he planted it at 221B somehow.  Sherlock has the code.  What Sherlock doesn't know, is how he has the code.  He needs to know that before he can safely confront Moriarty.  John, a great source of inspiration, gets Sherlock there in the lab with the finger-tapping.  And Sherlock texts Moriarty - he's ready to go.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Ah -- so you think that even though Sherlock already knew that the code had to be a hoax, and was reasonably certain that Moriarty must have given him some sort of false clue as to the supposed nature of the nonexistent code -- he hadn't yet figured out what that clue actually was.  And he needed to know in order to play dumb with Moriarty.

 

Yes, I like that.  Otherwise, that finger-tapping bit in the lab makes no sense (which was bothering me again just today).

 

[Julia Mae]

Ah -- so you think that even though Sherlock already knew that the code had to be a hoax, and was reasonably certain that Moriarty must have given him some sort of false clue as to the supposed nature of the nonexistent code -- he hadn't yet figured out what that clue actually was.  And he needed to know in order to play dumb with Moriarty.

 

Yes, I like that.  Otherwise, that finger-tapping bit in the lab makes no sense (which was bothering me again just today).

 

That's my theory, anyway.  It also explains the timing of when he calls Moriarty to the roof.   Sherlock was real weird all through this episode - sad and stressed.  My take is he is racing Moriarty in a game where he and Mycroft have set up as much as possible, but they have to give him plenty of rope so he feels in control.  So a lot is unknown and Sherlock has to figure it out, lives depend on it. 

 

But after he gets that finger-tapping thing, he seems to me to calm down.  He stops  bouncing the ball and just waits.  For someone to see Moriarty arrive and get John out of the way, I believe.   He's like an actor waiting for a cue.

 

(Of course, he is an actor wai-- oh, nevermind!)

 

[Julia Mae]

OH MY GOSH!! WE CAN END THE THREAD - BENEDICT CUMBERBATCH REVEALS HOW HE SURVIVED THE FALL ON TV!!

 

 

 

 

 

I guess I should have made this a spoiler... oh well ... never mind.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, you've already spoiled it, Julia Mae!  

 

It also explains the timing of when he calls Moriarty to the roof.
 
But after he gets that finger-tapping thing, he seems to me to calm down.  He stops  bouncing the ball and just waits.  For someone to see Moriarty arrive and get John out of the way, I believe.

 

Right, that's what I've been thinking lately -- the "EMT" phone call to John isn't just to get John out of the way, it's also a signal to Sherlock that Moriarty is on his way up.  Which explains why Sherlock gets Moriarty's text immediately after John storms out.

 

Added: I expect we were supposed to think that Moriarty faked the call, in order to get John out of the way.  And that's exactly what I did think for a long time.

[Julia Mae]

 

It also explains the timing of when he calls Moriarty to the roof.

 

But after he gets that finger-tapping thing, he seems to me to calm down.  He stops  bouncing the ball and just waits.  For someone to see Moriarty arrive and get John out of the way, I believe.

 

Right, that's what I've been thinking lately -- the "EMT" phone call to John isn't just to get John out of the way, it's also a signal to Sherlock that Moriarty is on his way up.  Which explains why Sherlock gets Moriarty's text immediately after John storms out.

 

Added: I expect we were supposed to think that Moriarty faked the call, in order to get John out of the way.  And that's exactly what I did think for a long time.

 

Yes, and it makes sense that way, with what we see onscreen.  One thing we know for sure, because Gatiss talked about it, is that they plant red herrings very purposefully for the viewers.  They must have agonized over this episode, knowing how crazy fans get nitpicking apart episodes like this. 

 

I've always wondered if Sherlock put the camera in his apartment himself, so Mycroft could track things without having to speak directly to Sherlock so they can maintain the fiction of being estranged.  I mean, it's interesting Moriarty didn't have someone set to take Mycroft out. 

 

ANYWAY - (I do  digress, don't I?) anyway - so John comes out of 221B seeing Mrs. Hudson is okay and a cab conveniently pulls up and a  big guy getting in is just as polite as he can be when John tells him to "sod off" and steals his cab.   It seems to me that this is how they control the timing.  If they needed John to be delayed getting back, they could have the cab break down or get caught at a traffic light or something, I suppose. 

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

The would-be taxi customer does actually grumble a bit.  Ariane DeVere's transcript reports the exchange as :

 

JOHN: No, no, no, no, police! ... Sort of.
MAN (walking away angrily): Oh, thanks, mate – thanks a lot(!)

 

But that could be just pro forma, I suppose.  You're right, it is awfully convenient.  (But then again, isn't there always a cab coming along just when Sherlock & John need one?)

 

[Julia Mae]

The would-be taxi customer does actually grumble a bit.  Ariane DeVere's transcript reports the exchange as :

 

JOHN: No, no, no, no, police! ... Sort of.

MAN (walking away angrily): Oh, thanks, mate – thanks a lot(!)

 

But that could be just pro forma, I suppose.  You're right, it is awfully convenient.  (But then again, isn't there always a cab coming along just when Sherlock & John need one?)

 

The transcript is not correct.   He doesn't walk away at all and doesn't show anger.  He says something a little indistinguishable I hear as "Oh, alright." He looks at the taxi driver and says clearly "Thanks a lot."   His voice is calm at all times and simply he stands there while John gets into the cab, he speaks to the driver, the door slams and we cut back to the roof.

 

You're right that there is always a cab just when they need one!  But there isn't always a rather large man standing at the curb waiting for it who so easily allows his right to the cab to be usurped.

[Carol the Dabbler]

We just reran this scene several times, and neither Alex nor I can make out everything that's being said.  There is a "Thanks a lot" in there, but it could just as easily be sarcastic (to John) as genuine (to the driver), and the former makes more sense to us.  Also, I wasn't watching to see whether the man is shown literally walking away, but he does back off.  But none of that really matters, because he could still be a plant, just playing his role well.

 

Also, when John is knocked down by the bicycle, we both hear what could be a telephone ringing once -- but neither of us hears any additional rings.  I do hear some recurring sounds in the same frequency range, but they are much fainter, and I take them to be part of the music.

 

Could be just our television set or our ears, but that's what we hear (or don't).

 

[Julia Mae]

 

 

Also, when John is knocked down by the bicycle, we both hear what could be a telephone ringing once -- but neither of us hears any additional rings.  I do hear some recurring sounds in the same frequency range, but they are much fainter, and I take them to be part of the music.

 

Could be just our television set or our ears, but that's what we hear (or don't).

 

Yes, the first ring is quite distinct, if a bit faint.  But then we have the violins.  I listen with headphones on the computer,  and I believe the second ring is just distinguishable under the violin which is playing the same pitch and the third ring is so, well, ephemeral?  Anyway, maybe I don't hear it at all!  And I'm old, let's face it.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

When considering what may or may not be a clue, I tend to discount anything that I might be imagining.  I believe it was Mark Gatiss who was quoted as saying something to the effect that you can't really call it a clue if the only way you can see it is to freeze-frame the episode and magnify the screen 50x.  I assume the same applies to sound.

 

Which is not entirely the same thing as saying that I think they've played fair!

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I suppose it depends on what one calls fair. But I do think Moffat and Gatiss....especially Gatiss, just laughs himself silly when he thinks of how fans are falling all over ourselves falling for the red herrings. And even the actors have gotten into the act. For example when it was noted that "Mary" was wearing a wedding ring, Amanda says in an interview something along the lines of "Oh, Mary married Molly....oh....did I just tell a fib?"

[Julia Mae]

When considering what may or may not be a clue, I tend to discount anything that I might be imagining.  I believe it was Mark Gatiss who was quoted as saying something to the effect that you can't really call it a clue if the only way you can see it is to freeze-frame the episode and magnify the screen 50x.  I assume the same applies to sound.

 

Which is not entirely the same thing as saying that I think they've played fair!

 

I wish I could read where he said this, but I can certainly agree.  The thing about my dedication to the ring as a clue is: I never heard it.  My daughter, who watched the episode like once when it first aired, after I got interested asked me, "But what about when the phone rings when John gets knocked down?" 

 

Huh?

 

So, a woman in her late thirties just heard it during the show and accepted it as a matter of course.  Me, I had to go pay attention.  But she's like that, a very acute observer.  She's also the one who asked me, just from memory of watching the show like two years ago, why I thought Sherlock's bottle of pills only had one pill and the others all had more.

 

They did?

 

Yup.

 

I think I'll go look at my own theories and see how many clues I have based ideas on that require free-framing the show.  

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Aha -- here it is:

 

 

 

"Some of [the fan theories] are incredibly byzantine, which is amazing and it's funny and lovely that people could be so elaborate about it," said Gatiss.

 

"[but] you can't possibly build a solution on something that can only be glimpsed when you blow up the image 65 times and then discover a continuity error."

 

So maybe a mere 50 times is OK after all?

 

I'm pondering the possible age connection.  It's true that most younger people have better hearing than most older people.  Might Moftiss consider something "obvious" that would be marginal at best to you or me?

 

They're not all that young, though, 50-ish.  Cumberbatch and Freeman are younger, about your daughter's age, but they don't seem to be particularly involved in the writing.

 

Looking them up, I noticed an interesting pattern:

 

Benedict Cumberbatch: born 19 July 1976

Martin Freeman: born 8 September 1971

Mark Gatiss: born 17 October 1966

Steven Moffat: born 18 November 1961

 

If only Cumberbatch had been born a month later (and to be extra picky, Freeman had been born ten days later), it'd be perfect -- the four of them born 4 years, 11 months apart!  (Maybe Cumberbatch was a preemie?)

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Amazing how things like this happen. Like the Kennedy/Lincoln comparisons.

[Julia Mae]

(Maybe Cumberbatch was a preemie?)

 

I don't think so, have you ever seen his baby picture?  He was a bruiser! 

 

I think the thing about aging is not that there is so much a discrete loss, as sort of sets of things that get kind of blunted.  Like, we don't see as much peripherally and even if we do, our brains don't process as much complex information as quickly.  We hear okay as far as range, maybe, but we don't discriminate sounds as well. 

 

Luckily, we have sagacity on our side!