My thoughts on 'Sherlock' series 4.

 Despite what I might’ve said in my last podcast - which was recorded only a few weeks ago - I recently took the step of watching the latest series of the named programme. This will sound unremarkable if you haven’t listened to my ‘Best TV of 2020’ podcast, so to explain a little further, I was dead set, until only last week, that I would never finish ‘Sherlock’ as I feared a tragic end to the programme (by the way, I realise that the programme in question did not come out in 2020, but it’s too long a story to explain why it came up in that podcast, so you’re just going to have to put up with it I’m afraid.) Series 4 of the hit British show came out in 2017 and was poorly received by fans and critics alike, marking it out as the black sheep among Sherlock’s previous seasons: Series 4 has, by far, the lowest average rating of Sherlock’s seasons on IMDB (8.7 to be exact, which is actually still a superb rating), and it’s the only one of the show’s series to be ‘rotten’ on rottentomatoes.com. The final series is, at the very least, divisive, then. I was all too aware of this as I teetered on the precipice at the end of the penultimate season, too scared to jump further into the unknown. Well, make the jump I did - and crash-land I did not. Sherlock series 4 exceeded my expectations, and I fear that I’ll explode if I don’t unload all of my thoughts on it immediately. I’m not going to share this musing anywhere: it’s more of a traditional blog rambling, as opposed to a directed article of the sort I normally produce. I don’t expect anyone to read anything I upload, but definitely in this instance I don’t expect anyone to read what I’ve written. Who cares for my thoughts on something that came out 3 and a half years ago? I’m producing this for my own benefit, essentially. At risk of blathering any further, I’ll unscrew the lid on my brain so that my thoughts can let loose.

I would firstly like to address a criticism levelled at series 4 in a video I watched the other day. The video’s narrator suggested that ‘Sherlock(‘s)’ final season went wrong in shifting from simple detective stories to focusing on Holmes the individual. I have a simple rebuke to this: the programme is called ‘SHERLOCK’ - this suggests to me that it’s a study of an individual (and it’s not like the trilogy of episodes in question deprives us of brilliant deduction either.) I think there’s a line to be drawn here between this televisual take on Doyle’s books, and the other famous televisual take on the same source material. I’m speaking of Granada’s 1980s adaptation, featuring Jeremy Brett in the lead role, of course. The aforementioned series is set in Victorian England, and is all about faithfully capturing Doyle’s stories on screen. ‘Sherlock’, as anyone reading is probably already aware, is totally different, in that it’s a proper modern adaptation, using the original stories as mere touch-pads. I’m not saying that one is better than the other - what I want to profess is that the 1980s series already exists with all the case-solving you can ever dream of, so I think it’s perfectly acceptable for modern-day ‘Sherlock’ to explore different avenues with the famous detective. As I said, it’s not like season 4 is totally bereft of Sherlock in his deductive element, either - it’s just the case that he’s not always using his skills to solve crimes. If people aren’t happy with this, they can go and watch the 1980s version. I certainly didn’t mind. People should remember too that - spoiler alert - the series ends with Holmes and Watson returning to normal case-cracking service; so you might see it like this: the writers have got a little deviation out of their systems, and now they feel refreshed for a return to what we know and love. I’d like to clarify again, though - I was perfectly fine with this turn away from the traditional in series 4 (especially as it didn’t end with either Holmes or Watson dying). 

Another defence of series 4 I’d like to make regards ‘deus ex machina’ accusations. It was the episode named 'The Lying Detective' at the receiving end of this criticism, from the same video narrator I mentioned earlier. This, the second of season four’s three episodes, is almost a rehash of series 2’s ‘The Reichenbach Fall’ - let me explain. In the latter episode, Sherlock calculates his own downfall (literally and figuratively) in order to bring down Moriarty - in the season 4 episode,  Sherlock again masterminds his own demise, this time to catch Culverton Smith off guard. This, reusing a flavour of plot, might be validly criticised: I found the story of ‘The Lying Detective’ annoyingly guessable in this regard, especially when Holmes said to Watson ‘you won’t like the plan’ (I still loved this episode though). Alas, I digress. The contentious, ‘deus ex machina’, moment arrives when, as you’d expect, all hope is seemingly lost. Please stop reading if you don’t want spoilers, by the way. As I was saying, though: we’re led to believe at first, at the end of ‘The Lying Detective, that Culverton Smith’s confessions are lost. The villain thought ahead, making sure that all recording devices were removed from the room - that is, until Sherlock reveals that John’s walking stick contained a microphone the whole time. The walking stick had been deposited by John earlier in the episode as a farewell present to the injured detective. This tide-turning reveal (that the stick had a microphone in it) ultimately sends Smith to jail, and is thus regarded as a deus ex machina. Reflecting upon it, I can somewhat understand this label. It’s certainly an unexpected and unlikely occurrence which solves a seemingly unsolvable problem, in keeping with the definition of an ex machina. That said, I think these criteria need to be viewed differently in the context of a Sherlock Holmes story. We’re dealing with a man of remarkable intelligence, after all. This is, I think, what we’re meant to believe: Holmes planted a microphone in Watson’s old walking stick, predicting that Watson would bring it to his hospital room as a farewell gift, predicting that Smith would strip the room of all other hidden bugs. I find this totally feasible. What’s more, at other points in the same episode, Sherlock pulls similar clairvoyant tricks (albeit to lesser effect), so it’s not like this final move is out of nowhere - unlike the eagles in Lord of The Rings. You could call this move a deus ex machina, or you might say that it’s a brain flex from a highly intelligent person - as most revelations in Sherlock are brain flexes from a highly intelligent person. I feel like I haven’t explained my point very well, so I’ll give it one last crack. In my eyes, a deus ex machina is something random from left field, like the aforementioned Eagles. I simply think it’s unfair to say that this applies to the walking stick thing, which can be explained, and which is rooted in things that have already happened in the episode. 

Before I move on, I need to acknowledge something else: the video man did make a good point when he said that, in the episode’s final twist, ‘The Lying Detective’ let us down by failing to take us through Sherlock’s thought process. I agree with this. One of the things that makes ‘Sherlock’ so enthralling is the way that we’re dropped into the detective’s busy mind: think of a ‘Scandal in Belgravia’, the first episode in Series 2, when Holmes first encounters Isla Adler and we see him trying to work her out from her appearance; when he fails to do so, he looks at Watson, and we see him constructing an image of Watson’s last 24 hours from the dirt under his nails, the colour of his eyebrow hair, etc. Perhaps this is a poor example actually, as Holmes isn’t making any real progression here (it was the only thing I could think of from the top of my head, I’m afraid) Nevertheless, what I’m trying to get at is, in this scene, Holmes is in the process of deduction - of detection - and we see everything that leads him to his conclusion. This repeated device in the programme is one of the things that makes ‘Sherlock’ so popular. Anyway, back to my original point. The video man correctly challenged the walking-stick twist in ‘The Lying Detective’ for its opaqueness, in comparison to moments like the aforementioned in ‘A Scandal in Belgravia’. We’re shown nothing, prior to Holmes revealing the bug, that would suggest he’s got a trick up his sleeve. This is frustrating, because it’s betraying the previous excellent writing of Sherlock - and it gives the impression of a deus ex machina. Even in ‘The Reichenbach Fall’ episode, which delivers one of the greatest twists in TV history with Sherlock’s inexplicable survival, one may detect the seeds of the unexpected throughout the story: e.g. Sherlock arriving at the Hospital earlier than John, and then the instructions for Watson to remain in a certain spot whilst Holmes is on the roof. These little ditties surreptitiously point towards the twist. There’s nothing of the sort in ‘The Lying Detective’, which is disappointing. In this regard, Series 4 entered ex machina territory, which is unheard of for ‘Sherlock’ - a fact I found troubling (once it was pointed out to me in the video)  I took an awfully long time to make this point, I apologise. Then again, I assume no one is reading this. What’s the answer? I don’t know. 

So far, I haven’t really given my actual, original, thoughts on ‘Sherlock’ Series 4. Merely responding to what someone else thinks about the programme isn’t cathartic enough for me - in that case, I’ll be gabbling a little further, focussing on each episode one-at-a-time. Before I begin, I’ll reiterate: I greatly enjoyed series 4 (for the most part). 

The latest (I’m hesitant to say ‘final’) season began with the episode ‘The Six Thatchers’. I found this episode a little underwhelming (perhaps this was inevitable though, being as it was the first episode of a series I’d built up so much in my mind). I can’t really put my finger on why the story disappointed me - it just did. I didn’t really understand the whole betrayal twist with the ‘ammo’ codeword, and I didn’t really care about it either. To be honest, Mary Watson annoyed me a little as a character, so the episode was wasted on me. The scene of her leaving the country was annoying, and it amounted to nothing. Some of the ‘funniness’ in the script seemed a little forced too: I remember a scene with Watson, Holmes and Lestrade which rankled a bit, in which the former and the latter joked about Sherlock being a baby. The opening scenes of the episode annoyed me in a similar fashion, e.g. Sherlock answering the phone at the altar, and the montage of Sherlock flying through different cases (which was really hard to follow). All of this pales into comparison with the episode’s worst development - spoiler alert - John Watson’s decision to cheat on his wife. I couldn’t believe my eyes when this happened! In my opinion, Watson would never stoop to such immorality, and my blood was almost boiled to see his character tarnished as such. Season 4 didn’t get off to the greatest start, then. The episode wasn’t all bad, though: I liked how the writers stayed a step-ahead with the Thatcher thing. I guessed that something was hidden in one of the statues, assuming that something was the Medici Pearl. The reality of things was a little different, with the hidden object being a USB stick. In this way, the writers teased us and dangled a thread without taking the biscuit, which was something I enjoyed. The mystery of the boy’s skeleton in the car was also tantalizingly clever. Most of all, though, I revelled in the rough treatment Thatcherism got in this episode. Overall, I think that ‘The Six Thatchers’ may be best thought of as an encapsulation of Series 4 as a whole: moments of brilliance, but an overriding sense of something being not quite right.

I’ve touched on episode two in the series - ‘The Lying Detective’ - quite a lot already, so I’ll try not to bang on about it for much longer. This was my favourite episode of the three in the series. It felt like authentic ‘Sherlock’, and I loved everything about it. Toby Jones as Culverton Smith was chilling - it’s a shame that he’s confined to only one episode (but admittedly I was relieved to see him get his comeuppance). The sequence between Sherlock and Faith Smith was electric too; I’m aware that some people find the deduction scene in the road (with the phantom window frame) gratuitous, but it was right up my street (no pun intended). Tied in with this, I liked how Sherlock’s mental demise was portrayed in this story: it was very much a case of the ‘flawed narrator’. For example, the moment when the detective realises that Smith is a serial killer - he’s deep in hallucination as he wanders through busy traffic. Cumberbatch acted this very well I thought. The writers carefully establish the fact that Sherlock is unsteady, so we can’t totally trust the claims he makes about Smith. If you look at the story for what it is, we’re let in on the secret almost straightaway - Sherlock reaches the right conclusion 20 minutes-ish into the show. What the writers have done so brilliantly, though, is undermine Sherlock, so that we’re kept in suspense until Smith actually admits it. The pervading sense of menace in the episode is thrilling too. Everything Toby Jones says and does seems loaded and insincere. Furthermore, I like how Mary’s video is relevant in the episode - particularly the part that was shown after the credits in the previous show - which acts as a thread between ‘The Six Thatchers’ and ‘The Lying Detective’. Obviously, and additionally, the introduction of Eurus Holmes was rather show stopping as well. What can I say about it? I was just happy, more than anything, to see a coherent twist - something hidden in plain sight - after wanting for this in ‘The Six Thatchers’. This episode didn’t conform to what I had heard/read about season 4, and actually, it’s probably the main reason that I was positively surprised by this series. Yes, I do accept that ‘The Lying Detective’ wasn’t perfect - the walking-stick thing could’ve been handled better for one, and John’s beating of Sherlock wasn’t pleasant to watch - but I personally really enjoyed it for the most part.

From what I'd read about 'The Final Problem', prior to watching the last episode of Series 4 for myself, I had the idea that this show would be a devastatingly disappointing end to 'Sherlock'. Eurus Holmes - particularly for her powers of manipulation - was touted as the main reason for this, as people found her to be an unrealistically mighty antagonist. WelI, now that I have seen the episode for myself, I must say that I don't know what all the fuss is about! Admittedly, it wasn't my favourite episode of 'Sherlock' ever, and whilst I did have some issues with it, it was far from the offence on Conan Doyle's name that some had made it out to be. I think that 'The Final Problem' worked successfully as a final episode to something. It referenced and tied up details that'd been left open-ended throughout 'Sherlock': what happened to Redbeard? Is Moriarty still alive? and do the Holmes' have a relative? Best of all was Sherlock’s moment of piracy, giving him a taste of his dream job. Importantly, there was substance behind these moments. For example, the Redbeard thing had a principal role in the plot, as did the question regarding the third Holmes sibling. We weren’t just met with shallow fan service. Additionally, besides a few details that I’ll get into shortly, the general story of the show was satisfying. The main setting of the episode (a high security prison), as well as the main antagonist (Eurus Holmes), combined to give ‘The Final Problem’ palpably high-stakes. I thought that the first twist - having the Governor and his wife bumped off - was really effective in this regard, as it showed us that Eurus wasn’t messing around. It’s always entertaining to see Sherlock jumping through mental hoops too (something first seen in the Series 1 episode, ‘The Great Game’) and he whips out some fine deduction in the process of solving his Sister’s puzzles.

 In regards to a common criticism I’ve seen aimed at Eurus - some people saying that she has unbelievable superhuman powers - I found little evidence to support such a notion. Yes, she gazumped the Prison Warden, but this didn’t seem too far-fetched to me (I think so, anyway). I suppose she’s just like a female Derren Brown. Maybe the writers were a little flippant with her intelligence, though: off-hand remarks like ‘she predicted a terrorist attack by looking at social media for an hour’ stood out to me, as well as the fact that she mapped out a 5 year plan on the basis of a 5 minute tete-a-tete with Moriarty. Come on though, she’s hardly Jean Grey. What I mean to say is that the writers barely took any liberties with Eurus’ character (in my opinion), and I personally don’t believe that her brain flexes undermined the integrity of the plot. I did think that she caved in a little too easily at the end of things, though, and the whole twist with her putting on the girl’s voice seemed a little farcical too (but clever I suppose). On the topic of things that I was unsure about in ‘The Final Problem’, I didn’t understand why Holmes and Co. actually turned up at the prison. It was definitely a case of walking into the dragon’s den and getting bitten. They knew that Eurus was loose (she nearly blew them to smithereens before their departure) so I don’t know what they expected to achieve by visiting her prison. There’s also the case of Mycroft organising the meeting between Eurus and Moriarty. The writers tried their hardest to sell us on this by having Mycroft chastised for it throughout the episode, but it didn’t change my belief that it was a contrived and ridiculous development. The end of the story gave me further cause for complaint: we never find out where the deadly well is, and Eurus just submits to her fate. We were definitely let out on a whimper. This episode did more right than wrong, though, and I haven’t even mentioned the clever reintroduction of Moriarty, Sherlock’s phone call with Molly, nor the thing we’d all been waiting for - Sherlock and John returning to normal service at the end of things. Once again, then, I would say that we get Series 4 in a microcosm here: sporadic moments of excellence, but short, somehow, of the previous seasons’ brilliance. What I can say for Season 4 is that I was cock-a-hoop to see both main characters surviving all three episodes. My worst fears were not realised (now all I have to worry about is no more series of ‘Sherlock’) Well, maybe life’s too short for that (Can you respond to something you wrote in brackets? I hope so.) It’s also too short for reading my garrulous ramblings.

There you have my thoughts on Sherlock series 4, then. I apologise for the lack of rhyme and reason in this post; it turns out that writing for catharsis and writing for an easy read are mutually exclusive things. I had to get my thoughts about ‘Sherlock’ on paper, though, as I’ve been obsessed with it for a few weeks. None of the other series lent themselves to a blog post, as they’re all perfect (more-or-less), so I had no real unique insight on them (not to say that I do have that on Series 4) The latest series, meanwhile, is prime for discussion and debate in its divisiveness, and I feel as if I’m voicing unusual thoughts by not slating it. I genuinely enjoyed the season in question, and I’d love to find out what anyone reading this (if there is anyone) thinks about it too. Feel free to comment on this post/Tweet me.

Thanks for reading!