you’d THINK Mary would throw herself in front of John when someone was about to shoot him if she was really all that willing to take a bullet for someone, right?
And Sherlock is the one who flips up the table to give John cover!
Yes. It’s the first thing he does when the shooting starts.
GOD
Omfg. He flipped the table? How the fuck sid I not notice that (after watching it 3 times)
OH MY GOD
SHERLOCK DIDN’T EVEN TRY TO HIDE AT FIRST
HE JUST FLIPPED THE TABLE ASAP
OH MY GOD
(I WISH I COULD SCREENSHOT IT BUY MY VOLUME BUTTONS ARE NOT WORKING ANYMORE)
wow what a romantic detail! like, ‘here, baby, this is for you: hide here’,
While Mary does a 180 and literally runs away I’m screAMING
Okay, but she does push him down in the moment, doesn’t she? And what else she can do in that position? Sherlock, at the same time, is hidden behind the wall, Ajay doesn’t see him yet (but he sees Mary and is going to kill Mary, so…)
Break it down with slow-motion gifs and you can see it’s cut so you can’t actually tell if Mary is pushing John to safety or pulling him in front of her as a human shield while she dodges away.
there’s no way of telling exactly what she’s doing here
looks to me like she’s trying to use him as shield since if she were trying to save him she’d just shove him, easier than reaching around and pulling his shoulders imo, but ofc i can be wrong
How does she even see the pointer on John and why does she look to the right of John before taking action?
Sherlock saw the pointer from his position offscreen, and yelled “Get down!” which triggered Mary’s move.
So… that happened. By following CAM’s looking glass, we find a creepy presence in the interrogation room with John and Lestrade. Some of you said that the dude was a guard or Mycroft in a two-way mirror. But his face was an ashen color, like…. a shark. Also, in the previous scene, John and Lestrade was freely discussing Magnussen being shot in the face, a case supposedly with a D-notice.
What’s going on?
Let’s focus on the creepy dude first. You know who he reminded me of?
Alex Woodbridge. One of three Alex by the way – agra Alex, and Alex Garrideb… a connection to another A (why is the show like this)? But what’s the point of bringing him back?
Superficial. So who’s the undead this time? Someone with an initial “A” perhaps?
Let’s get the premise out of the way first – I believe the entire series 4 was a combination of:
clusterfuck of memories and doctored footage of past events
an incomplete version of what happened during “5 minutes since Mycroft called” and a doctored version of 10 minutes after Sherlock landed
“Sometimes, to solve a case, one must first solve another.” Series 4 is an extension of TAB, no question. The case of Emelia Rricoletti was both symbolic and literal. Symbolic as in solving the 120-years-of-buried-gay since ACD’s The Final Problem, literal as in Redbeard (cherchez la femme, cherchez le chien, i.e. elephant in the room and the curious incident of the hounds), the connection between Moriarty & Mary (both in mourning attire), and the question of “how could he/she survive?” 1895 did get Sherlock as far as Holmes sharing 221B happily with Watson smoking each others’ pipes 🎉 🎉 🎉, but for present day Sherlock it only got him to “Moriarty is dead” – so he spent his “5 minutes since Mycroft called” sorting through his memory of being Sherlock Holmes since then in somewhat of a chronological order searching for answers.
And when I said Sherlock Holmes, I mean the Sherlock Holmes, the entity, all the Sherlock Holmes there ever was. I think this is one reason we have the insane horror/spy/mystery genres mash-up, the public not knowing John’s blog, and the fourth wall breaking – Sherlock went “too deep” – he intersected with all the previous mainstream adaptations of Sherlock Holmes. But that’s not the only thing going on – we have a spectre at the feast, hidden in plain sight; the one that’s been feeding us the version through a looking glass: doctored footage, surveillance, film within a film, screens within screens, dvd after dvd?
A hint, a split second from a scene, in the middle of the Culverton Smith case that shared eerie similarities to HLV.
How could Magnussen survive?
p.s. If this is indeed the case, and we get the 4th episode, you know what this mean, right? The self-reference is not only of Sherlock within Sherlock Holmes adaptations but Heartwood/BBC as a producers/broadcaster within all the other producers/broadcasters that ever made/aired a Sherlock Holmes adaptations. What could possibly be so DIFFERENT that they went through all the trouble?
I know the consensus is that Mycroft is Antartica based on Moriarty’s nickname for Mycroft of ‘The Ice Man’, but I am not so sure. We know Lady Smallwood is Love. So that leaves us with Langdale, Porlock and Antartica.
Langdale and Porlock were BOTH informants in canon. Porlock an agent of Moriarty. As a believer in M-Theory I am leaning to Porlock being Mycroft. The evidence for this is all documented in M Theory.
I am also thinking that Langdale is Sherlock, mainly due to the canon reference to Langdale’s homosexuality; he’s described as ‘languid’ which was a Victorian code term in literature for gay as a rainbow. The writer’s know that. Plus Langdale Pike was into the more ‘street’ information, similar to the cases Holmes took on, they both dealt in a world of love, betrayal, loss, jealousy, scandals. They both enjoyed the personal side of their work out among the public.
Which leaves Sir Edwin as Antartica, and really he is played as a cold fish, plus there were a great many Sir E’s who tackled Antarctica: Ernest Shackleton, Edmund Hillary, Edgeworth David, Evelyn Bird.
I remember wondering about this too. At first, it seemed to make sense that mycroft=antarctica, so either sir edwin or vivian would be porlock or langdale. I always did wonder why there were five people but only four code names. who is the odd one out? vivian, as the “secretary”? Sherlock, as the subject of the matter? or one of the others?
What I wonder is this: wouldn’t it be common courtesy to introduce the highest ranking person in the room first? That would leave ‘love/amo’ to the secretary Vivian Norbury … which she is in the end:
SHERLOCK: Let me introduce
Amo
Probably just silly thoughts but then …. sometimes things are not quite as they seem to be ….
Sherlock has fallen in love, but with
who? Series 4 is all about love.
Antarctica: Mycroft
Langdale: Sir Edwin
Porlock: Lady Smallwood
Love: Sherlock (and Norbury)
I believe Sherlock and Norbury are the
same. They are even dressed alike when she is introduced. I believe
most (if not all) of the women on this show are a form of Sherlock’s
psyche.
Psyche being the “center of a
person’s thought, feeling, motivation, consciously and unconsciously
directing the body’s reactions to its social and physical
environment. The mind, soul, or spirit.”
Sherlock = Mary (She’s his sociopathic
side in a relationship with John; the brain without a heart; the liar)
Sherlock = Norbury (She is Sherlock
killing-off his sociopathic side. She’s older. She is self-love that
has aged, matured and developed over time)
Sherlock = Lady Smallwood (In S3, she
is ruined by CAM, and his pressure points vs Sherlock ruined by
Moriarty, and his pressure points) PorLOCK. In S4, she is used
differently. She becomes associated with sex. She is used to
represent the “Sex doesn’t alarm me,” moment from ASIB. Norbury
follows her around for a reason – it’s similar to Sherlock’s cold
mask that he carries around with him.
Sherlock = Eurus (Eurus is love
represented in various forms)
I believe Mary’s death scene is
Sherlock killing-off his sociopathic side, and breaking free from the
cold mask (reason for the Thatcher smashing). In doing so, he
confirms a value upon his life for the first time. He can only love
if he loves himself enough to stop risking his life. Also, ammunition
is a call back to TRF when John told Mycroft that he gave Moriarty
all the amo he needed to ruin Sherlock. Therefore, Sherlock is
linking “amo” to “burning the heart out of you,” in his mind.
John and Sherlock’s world changed on one word: “Moriarty!”
Hope/Faith/Love.
Eurus = Love in four different
forms. Remember: Eros is the Greek God of Love. His Roman counterpart
was Cupid.
Let’s use this to help us understand
the three episodes:
TST
E (Elizabeth on bus) =
Desire/Jealousy
Lady Smallwood has also been called
Elizabeth, and her husband had cheated through letters vs John’s
texting.
We have Sherlock saying he doesn’t
answer text messages that begin with “Hi” vs John/E’s texting
beginning with “Hey.” John and Sherlock are a “couple” both
want/need more from Sherlock.
We have the phone/heart metaphor,
relating back to sexual desire and jealousy in ASIB.
TST ends with
Sherlock breaking free from the cold mask. He kills Mary (his
high-functioning sociopath self)
TLD
Sherlock values
his life, and wants romantic entanglements. He’s on dope because he
is gay =) Yes, Billy, tea is code!
Faith: Affectionate Love
Faith = John. Sherlock remembering the
love that is felt among friends who’ve endure hard times together.
And TLD ends with the affectionate hug.
Therapist: Unrequited Love/Unspoken
Love
John talking to Eurus as a therapist vs
John talking to Ella. “Say it now.” Unspoken feelings have been
an obstacle for Sherlock and John’s path to love. Mary (Unfeeling
Sherlock) stands behind the therapist as a reminder that both men
have yet to share their true feelings (Sherlock on the tarmac). We
get a small confession of their true feelings at the end of TLD. John says he
wanted more, and Sherlock embraces him.
Sherlock imagines sexual desire
between Mycroft and Lady Smallwood, overcoming the “how would you
know” moment from ASIB. Sex and love is no longer a mystery to him.
Sherlock’s character has evolved, and sex is mentioned a few times.
TFP
Eurus: Mania/Obession
TFP is Sherlock experiencing mania,
love itself is a means of rescuing himself; a reinforcement of his
own value as the sufferer of poor self-esteem. He wants to love and
be loved to find a sense of self-value. Because this desire is so
strong, Eurus is depicted as a possessive and jealous being, feeling
as though she desperately needs her “brother,” and Sherlock
desperately needing to save John Watson. He learns to love himself
unconditionally through the eyes of the man who loves him the most,
John.
Remember the shot of the Anteros
statue in the gay pilot? He is the God of requited love, avenger of
unrequited love. I believe this is what Series four has been all
about at it’s core. Taking us back to the beginning. It’s all about
love being returned. Anteros was given to his brother Eros, who was
lonely—the rationale being that love must be answered if it is to
prosper.
Brilliant! All these female characters as sherlock or john mirrors is very psychological, the way they talk about the shadow or hidden side of a male personality being female (and of a female person, the shadow is male) that’s no doubt oversimplifying it, but that did just occur to me. Therapist-“euros” with “mary” behind, makes me think of john’s reluctance to talk about how he feels, because he’s afraid sherlock “doesn’t feel things that way”, and “mary” represents that conception of sherlock. it’s already dead, but john isn’t sure of that yet. TFP “euros” acting like a scary control freak, because sherlock isn’t sure yet either. Sometimes the hardest testing comes just as the relationship is becoming strong enough to withstand it.
Very intriguing reads!!!!
Reblogging for the comments. Some great ideas here.
In addition to this post (x), but I think it’s amazing what this reply tells us about the scene in TFP… a motif which is great for “loss or regret”, but what exactly did Sherlock lose, or what does he regret in this scene?
Maybe the opportunity to say the words “I love you” for the very first time to anyone in his entire life, ever?
You’re welcome.
JACKY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GIVING US THIS GEM!
Indeed, the way I see it, the “LOSS” is Sherlock and John losing each other if John dies, and “REGRET” is precisely the “it’s too late now/ no it’s not, it’s not too late!” for love confessions and a romantic relationship.
(this is part of a larger photo series filming this scene, you can see all of them there if you want.)
First, they don’t seem like they belong to the same day, or the same hour (I can’t be sure which one is it) as in the first one the sunlight is different. In the second one there are no sunlight shadows. Second, why are their positions changed, only the first one is the same as in the actual episode, in the second one they are mirrored, and as I recall there is no scene with them like that. I’ve said it before but that final scene from TFP reminds me a lot of this promo pic from the first season
And in this one they are positioned like in the second of the previous ones. As we’ve seen other mirrored scenes in S4 (John and Mary changed places in bed in TST for example), to me this is suspicious.
If they are just filming the scene twice, why change positions? And filming that scene couldn’t take that long to the extent of the sun going down, right (please someone who knows more about filming, help me)? Could they maybe have filmed two scenes, like with the car one, in which their positions are changed too? I don’t know what to think anymore.
That’s their position in TFP [it’s the gif you added in your other post ;)]
Wouldn’t it be great if they were filming the fourth episode at the same time, so it ends similarly but with their positions changed? Heh, viva la wishful thinking!
Whoever created this scene knows that, in the story, the thing was done, that it was done quickly, and that is was done specifically to John and Sherlock. Not to Sherlock and Mycroft.He turns his eyes to John. He does, and John sees. It’s only for an instant, a couple of frames, and then it’s back to Mycroft, but it happens.It took her five minutes to do all of this to us. To us, John.I’ve been meaning to make this gifset for a long time. It feels important.
In the last Sherrinford scene in The Final Problem, Mycroft admits that everything that’s happening is his fault, because he allowed Eurus 5 minutes with Moriarty. Here’s what happens as Sherlock prepares to shoot Mycroft:
He’s talking to Mycroft. Of course he is. And there’s no pause in the sentence. “To do all of this to us” all comes out, while his eyes are locked with his brother’s.
But then:
He turns his eyes to John. He does, and John sees. It’s only for an instant, a couple of frames, and then it’s back to Mycroft, but it happens.
It took her five minutes to do all of this to us. To us, John.
Whoever created this scene knows that, in the story, the thing was done, and that is was done specifically to John and Sherlock. Not to Sherlock and Mycroft.
In The Six Thatchers, after introductions are made at the Wellsboroughs’ house,
Sherlock spots the Thatcher shrine, just as Mrs Wellsborough is saying, “Charlie was our whole world.” Sherlock is immediately plunged into this aquarium flashback:
Something triggered the watery flashback (which… bears no resemblance to well water, by the way). Was it Thatcher, or was it that turn of phrase?
Once the flashback is over, Sherlock immediately returns to the room:
But… it appears no one else has. Where are the Wellsboroughs? Where are John and Lestrade? In the next second, Sherlock snaps back to the full room, and asks, “You were saying?” and Mr Wellsborough takes the line this time, “Well, Charlie was our whole world.”
By the Thatcher shrine, John questions Sherlock about his reaction, and Sherlock responds, “By the pricking of my thumbs…”, indicating that this weirdness (see what I did there?) was caused by Sherlock having a premonition. This is a Shakespeare reference (another discussion of this here), to Act IV, Scene 1 of Macbeth:
For those who haven’t read Macbeth, it’s about a Scottish military man who receives a prophecy from three witches, saying that he will eventually become king. His wife (Lady Macbeth, naturally) then relentlessly pushes Macbeth into killing King Duncan to steal
his
throne. Both characters are consumed by guilt for the remainder of the play, and eventually pay for their crimes.
But this was not the only reference to Macbeth in The Six Thatchers.
The title of John’s blog post comes from arguably the best-known passage in Macbeth, his Act 5, Scene 5 “Tomorrow, tomorrow, and tomorrow” soliloquy:
Macbeth is explaining that death is inevitable, recalling the Samarra story. But he’s also telling us that life is not real, that we are all actors on a stage, something that is emphasized to us in The Six Thatchers many times over, in Ben’s makeup, his and Martin’s staring into the camera, the exposed cameraman in the Morocco scene, Mary’s “like it is in the movies” death scene, and by all the projectors.
This soliloquy immediately follows Macbeth learning that his wife has committed suicide. Lady Macbeth had been tormented by the thought that her hands were stained by blood which she could not wash out. Beginning in The Six Thatchers, bloodstains are also a common theme in S4.
Before she dies, Macbeth begs her doctor for some way to erase her memories:
Hmm… if only there were a way to do that.
The plot of Shakespeare’s Macbeth was inspired by the Gunpowder Plot. If The Empty Hearse’s Gunpowder Plotter, Lord Moran, was a decoy for Mary, have we come full circle with a reference to Mary in Lady Macbeth? Are these Macbeth references meant to signify a suicide (real or fake), covered up by the play we’ve been shown on the stage?
(CHARLIE, CHARLES, CARL. I wonder if Sherlock’s water moment was the swimming pool?)
Love these connections! Gunpowder Plot, Macbeth, pricking thumbs, The Empty Hearse, Mary, Lady Macbeth, Appointment with Death. And of course we have John HAMISH in his proud Black Watch Tartan shirt.
@longsnowsmoon5 I am more and more convinced that this is about Carl Powers… “Deep waters, all your life”. These are the waters we see on the screen, and they’re about Moriarty and the pool, not Euros and a well.
Over the past couple of months I’ve been slowly making note of the dialogue, plots, characters, and scenes in Season Four, HLV, and TAB that have been recycled from previous episodes.
The Girl Without Hands is generally speaking a very awful story, it’s writing is just… not good. But! There is something there that could be connected to S4- the letters.
After the girl has her hands cut off, and is caught eating pears from the kings garden, he marries her because she is beautiful (typical) and she has a son while the King was away. When the Kings mother wrote to him, stating that the (handless) Queen had a child, the Devil replaces the letter with lies, and continues to do so as letters were sent back and forth, the fake letters tell the Mother to kill the Queen and her child. The mother is devastated by this and ties the child onto the Queens back (because you know… no hands) and tells her to leave for their own safety. At the end the Queen is taken care of by an angel until she is reunited with her husband 7 years later.
Now who has constantly been compared to the Devil?? I wonder.
Didn’t Mycroft get angel wings in the same episode?
Oh good memory! He did!
However, his wings are black, so still not pure, as the story seems to be focusing on.
“black wings” immediately reminded me of This Painting by Carvaggio, which depicts “amor”, the roman cupid. the title of the painting translates to “love conquers all”. to top it all off, there’s also a violin in the background. all of this may be a coincidence, but….. the universe is rarely so lazy
Sherlock Fandom Archive 