I am Sherlocked- a Study in Pink

I don't know why Sherlock came back into my consciousness. I don't know if a video just came up in my YouTube feed, or if a friend mentioned it, or whether the recent release of Enola Holmes me think about Eurus Holmes...

 

But it did. Sherlock is in my thoughts again. And, for some reason, I cannot exorcise it. I keep going back to it, I keep thinking about it. I can't get it out of my head. I am... Sherlocked. 

 

And even referencing that episode makes a shiver run down my spine. I thought I had got over it. I thought I was able to push it aside. Turns out.... no.

 

Let me tell you why not. Sometimes, I get an urge to re-watch a beloved series. Merlin. Other Holmes adaptations. House. Dad's Army. Porridge. Jeeves and Wooster. 

 

Recently, I had this urge... for Sherlock. And then, immediately, I realised that that was a terrible, terrible idea. Because of the ending. I don't think I really talked about the ending, and why I HATED it in my previous review. 

 

Now I will. I am going to watch every episode. I am going to explain the problems with every episode. I am going to break down... everything. And, I hope, I will finally be able to get it out of my system.

 

Because I was never angry at Sherlock. I was disappointed. And perhaps, finally, I will be able to get that disappointment out of my system. 

 

Maybe.

 

So, I begin in the place where this always has to begin. A study in Pink.

 

Please note, at this point Muddles took a several hour long break to watch no less than three videos attempting to solve the mystery of the secret KFC recipe. Despite the fact that she is a vegetarian.

Does that... help you to understand how she feels about this particular review?

 

I'm not procrastinating... honest?

 

 

Sherlock begins as all Sherlock Holmes adaptations should- with John Watson. He is our point of view character. He should be lovable, intelligent, fiercely loyal, always prepared to step up and defend the people, and the causes that he loves. But he has suffered time and time again from being so willing. Many adaptations interpret Conan-Doyles' description of him as meaning someone with PTSD. Certainly, in the original story, he has cause to have it. Not only is he wounded in battle, but just as he is almost recovered, he catches enteric fever (now known more commonly as Typhoid). For months, he is left unsure whether he will live or die, and finally returns to England knowing that his health will always be a trial for him.

 

So. Let's meet Sherlock's John Watson. John is introduced in the form of a nightmare/flashback, and then a therapy session. This immediately implies that this version of John Watson has PTSD. Which would be fine. We need to have a higher cultural awareness of this disease, so the more it is shown in media, the better. 

 

A caveat, the more it is shown correctly and accurately  in media the better. Look, I'm not an expert and I don't have PTSD, but I imagine that if I did, I would probably be insulted by the insinuation that it could get better.... overnight. Like Watson's does.

 

I'm sure I'll have more to say about this later. For now, let's move onto the plot. Staged suicides, or to be accurate, murders disguised as suicides. We see that several people have vanished, only to be found later having self-administered cyanide. 

 

Here we encounter one of the first problems with this mystery. Every single one of the people we see abducted is already associated with a London taxi cab. I know anyone who knows the original story will know to expect a cab driver to be the killer, but... When I first saw this, I thought it would be a misdirect. A nice nod the original story, before moving on and having a real mystery. But no. 

Later, in fact, we have Sherlock chasing a taxi cab, only to check the identity of the passenger and ignore the driver. Finally, we have a climactic scene in which Sherlock ponders who could pass unnoticed in a crowd, who can go anywhere without notice...

I mean, the audience literally knew within the first five minutes. So there is no mystery for us. I'd say "well that's fine, the joy is in watching Sherlock try to figure it out, not in working it out yourself", except, that's... not true, and also Sherlock comes of as REALLY REALLY stupid for not checking who the cab driver was. I mean... he has this really clever "I have a perfect map of London in my head" scene, then immediately forgets that cars don't drive themselves. Yet.

 

Another example of Sherlock's inconsistency comes next in the episode. Oh yes, that rant was prompted after less than 5 minutes. So, next, we get the press briefing. Lestrade is trying to explain what a "Serial Suicide" is, and Sherlock is, somehow, texting multiple people simultaneously. How? We... never know. We know he's done it before, Lestrade tells us that later on in the episode, but he... never does it again? And as far as we know, he doesn't have access to a database of journalists phone numbers, and he isn't really a hacker, as such. 

 

Hah. As this scene ends, Lestrade says to Donovan, "Tell me how he does it, I'll stop him!"

Except Donovan can't tell him how he does it, its never explained how he does it, and yet it suddenly stops. Never happens again. 

 

Next, we cut back to John. He is walking through a park, using a stick. Aw. What an opportunity. There is so little representation of people with disabilities in media, and Watson canonically uses a walking cane. But once more, by the end of the episode he's cast it aside. Doesn't need it any more. Because, say it with me, "you can get over any mental or physical disability just by moving into a new flat and making a new friend". 

Or how about realising that that is a REALLY STUPID MESSAGE THAT COULD POTENTIALLY NEGATIVELY IMPACT ON PEOPLE'S LIVES???????

 

But anyhoo.... 

John and Stanford have a chat. Watson is tense, clearly doesn't actually want to be talking to him. 

And then the famous "You're the second person to say that to me today". 

 

And so we meet Sherlock.

And Molly, but let's start off by talking about Corpses. 

 

At medical school, before they let us go into anatomy labs full of human bodies, or witness dissection of human bodies, they really drill some things into us. First, most importantly of all, you treat dead human bodies with respect. The people who donate their bodies to medical education or science are incredibly, ridiculously generous. It isn't a simple process, it requires a lot of paperwork, prior planning, and discussion with relatives and significant people in the prospective donor's life. 

Once a donor has died, the body is labelled, and a gigantic paper trail begins. Every specimen is marked with an identifier, normally a numbered (but anonymised) tag. They are stored in locked environments. Every single specimen is identifiable (with access to records) and traceable. The whole process has to be careful, precise and respectful, because the gift and the significance of a human body is so massive.

 

Similar principles apply in every situation, whether in an autopsy situation, or if a body is being used for research. Especially if used for research, actually, because when you're doing research, everything must be reproducible. Your methods must be clearly documented, there should be no confounding factors.

 

And then Sherlock turns up, and for his "science" beats a naked corpse with a cane.

 

I mean... where to begin? 

 

Firstly, he shouldn't even have access to that body. He doesn't work at this hospital, he isn't a research scientist. Frankly, Molly Hooper would almost certainly be fired just for giving him access to an area containing human corpse.

Secondly, he claims to be carrying out a scientific experiment. His "Scientific method" is so out of date that the original, Victorian Sherlock Holmes would be tutting disapprovingly! 

Thirdly, there as actually been a LOT of research into bruise formation after death, the thing Sherlock claims to be investigating. So his "beating the corpse" idea is completely unnecessary. 

Fourthly.... wow, this is getting to be a long list... Molly. Molly Hooper.

I'm pretty sure we never find out what her job is. I'm guessing "letting tall dark stranger have intimate access to corpses entrusted to your care" wasn't on the job description. Anyway, best guess is that she's a pathologist, largely because this is the job she's given in The Abominable Bride. So, Pathologist. Which means she has gone through five years of medical school, two years of foundation medicine, more years of core training, even more of specialty training... and yet Sherlock Holmes orders her to check his work for him. Because he can't be bothered to come back and see if bruises have formed himself. 

Seriously, re-watching him just ordering her about like that... Ugh. One thing is really, really clear. She is not his assistant. It is not her job to run around after him, and yet he just assumes that he will. And yes, she probably has a crush on him. Sherlock is either completely oblivious to this, and therefore has no reason to believe that she will do as he asks... or he knows she has a thing for him, knocks her back with one breath, then takes advantage of her with the next. 

So many levels of gross.

 

Anyway, we reach the Sherlock meets John scene. The famous one. "Afghanistan or Iraq?"

Is anyone else really, grossly saddened by the fact that the same question is applicable in both the originals, and modern adaptations.

 

This meeting happens in a room which is Sherlock's... is it his office? Does he work there? There is never any sign that he works there, so maybe he's just given lab space as a... I don't know, a favour?

The rest of this scene though, I.... This is why I used to love Sherlock so much. Apart from more Grass Sherlock and Molly relationship. But this is the first time we see Sherlock "read" someone. It's cool. It's clever. The music is iconic. The acting is on point. It's a glorious reimagining of a classic scene.

I still get a bit of a tingle watching it.

 

And then, almost immediately, we get to 221b Baker street.

One thing that always really irritates me is that 221b is the upstairs flat of the house 221, yes? Mrs Hudson lives in 221a? So why is 221b on the front door? Just... I know this is really widespread, and unimportant, but the numbering convention here confuses me. (Especially as later we get 221c, which is the... basement? What's up with that? Why would a building be c,a,b bottom to top?)

 

We also are introduced to Mrs Hudson. By being told a rather charming story about how Sherlock ensured that her husband would be executed.

Wait, charming? I'm all for fleshing out the character, but actively hiring a private detective to make sure her husband was killed?

Again, these things can slip you past on the first viewing. As can the fact that there is a human head in the fridge. I'm sure that's in compliance with the human tissue act. As is the human skull on the mantelpiece, which... well, plenty of human skulls do predate the more recent human tissue act, and so it isn't necessarily illegal to own a human skull... but if Sherlock knew the person it belonged to, then... That's possibly complicated. Especially his "friend" died after 2006, when the most recent Human Tissue Act was passed.

 

Wow, there is more Human Tissue Law in this post than I expected...

 

Anyway, next there is the first reference to what could quite reasonably be argued to become queerbaiting. Johnlock. You know, "Are Sherlock and John gay and going to have a romantic relationship?"

This is another topic on which I am really, really unqualified to speak. But people who do seem qualified to speak about it basically tend to conclude that the gay relationship between John and Sherlock was hinted at endlessly, to the point at which the people watching could reasonably expect it to happen, while the writers had no clear plan to ever make it happen. Thus, the audience was always doomed to disappointment, and an opportunity to raise awareness of a marginalised group was missed. 

 

Should John and Sherlock have been gay in this adaptation? I... honestly, I have no strong feelings. The relationship between Holmes and Watson is special. It's why the stories work. It's why the adaptations work. While the relationship between them is certainly loving, I have never seen an adaptation that takes that off in another direction, to the point where they become lovers. Thinking about it, I... would kind of like to see that. I mean, why not? If you're adapting Holmes, you should feel free to do what you like with it, to mess around, to create new situations. Creating new adaptations with new ideas will not destroy the sanctity of the original (barring creating a very strange public perception of Irene Adler, see my other posts on the topic...)

 

Anyway. Sherlock does have a problem with this. The audience got excited that this adaptation would be the one that showed JohnLock. The writers undoubtedly played on that multiple times throughout the series, but they never delivered. 

Basically, they should have gone all the way with it. These writers, however, like... I was going to use the work teasing. Maybe... maybe they actually like laughing at the audience.

 

Anyway, Sherlock is pulled into the mystery. Lestrade comes to pick him up, and the tension between Sherlock and Anderson is set up. Then Sherlock refuses to use the police car, saying he will come behind. This... look, I know it's a tiny thing, but it irritates me. He's going to waste time, money and fuel travelling in a separate car? Why? To avoid distraction? Because he could... he could just blank Lestrade. So that he can persuade John to come? Except I'm pretty sure you can fit more than two people in a police car. 

 

Anyway, Sherlock leaves John behind, John smarts at it, snaps at Hudson (who points out that she isn't a housekeeper three times in a minute. I mean, fine. Except she acts EXACTLY like a housekeeper at all times through the entire series. Is that meant to be a joke? It feels like it's meant to be a joke...)

 

Moments later, Sherlock returns. He quizzes John about his career, his expertise. Then he asks if Watson wants to see more death and horrors. Watson says... yes?

 

I'm sorry. That's just weird.

 

In the taxi, we get the first "Sherlock genius breakdown". It's... cool. Really cool. I mean, the psychosomatic limp stuff.... is weird and unscientific. But Sherlock's entire method of solving crimes is kind of fantastical, so I suppose we can let him off. We can also pretend that it's totally normal to have an engraved phone, even though it's... not. And my phone definitely has the scratches on it that are, apparently, never found on a sober man's phone. 

Have I accidentally developed an alcohol addiction without noticing, or should Sherlock just learn not to deal in absolutes?

 

Now, the crime scene. Everyone puts on blue suits. Apart from Sherlock, because he's allergic to the colour blue

Literally no other reason is give, so that is what I choose to believe.

 

Finally, we get to the Pink. Sherlock snaps at Lestrade for thinking. He does this kind of thing a lot. It's irritating.

Then he looks at the word "rache" scratched into the floor. We see him dismiss the idea that it is the German for revenge (which it is, by the way in the original story. It's planted by the real killer to throw the police off the scent. It's a clue that puts Holmes onto the real story. Here, it is later revealed that Rachel was the name of the Pink woman's dead daughter, and her password. So the significance of Rachel being her daughter is... nothing. It would be more believable if she'd used her dying breath to scratch "Password123456!" into the wooden floor.

Also, I know it may have great emotional significance or something, but the single word "Rachel" is a terrible password, and most systems would probably reject it for being too simple.

 

Sherlock goes on to inspect the rest of the body, and make some fairly simple (though unrealistic) deductions. The Lestrade leaves him alone at a crime scene. You know, in a few episode's time, people will start to think Sherlock committed all the crimes, and used his privileged position to destroy and plant clues to allow himself to "solve" the crimes.

If people LITERALLY EVER followed ANY KIND OF PROTOCOL and didn't leave a member of the public alone at a crime scene, that would never have happened. 

Like, seriously guys. 

 

Anyway, Sherlock then abruptly runs off, because he decides that she must have had a suitcase, and it must have been pink, and there's no way that she could have dropped it off somewhere, so he goes and hunts through bins and back alleys for a pink suitcase.

 

And John is left behind. Perfect. Just in time to be intercepted by Mycroft Holmes.

 

Did I mention that the writers like to tease the audience, then laugh at them? Mycroft's introduction exemplifies this. Because he is introduced like a villain. He is introduced like a very powerful, very dangerous man who wants information on Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock even describes him as an enemy. 

 

Look at what Mycroft does, knowing that it is Mycroft. He takes control of phones and cameras. He tells John to get in the car, and implies a threat by turning the security cameras away. He makes it clear that no-one is watching. John is strongly encouraged to get into a strange car, and is met by a strange woman. He immediately.... flirts with her? She doesn't tell him anything. If I were John Watson, I would be under the impression that my life was in danger. I would be trying to escape. But no.... because that would be inconvenient for the plot. 

Anyway, Mycroft shows up in a deserted... car park, I think? He doesn't tell John who he is, and says that all of the trouble of kidnapping him was so that Sherlock wouldn't know that they were meeting.

 

Because of course, abducting someone and taking them to an unknown location is much better than... I don't know.... talking to them on a payphone? Sherlock can read a lot about a person from their appearance, that's already been established. So Mycroft is certain that Sherlock won't notice that John has been in a car other than a taxi, or that he's been in a damp car-park, or, I don't know, that there's a perfume scent on him from sitting in a car with a woman??? Or that, instead of getting a taxi, John is literally delivered by a strange car, with a numberplate Sherlock can probably recognise as belonging to his brother?????????

 

The other truly RIDICULOUS thing about this scene is that Mycroft thought that threatening John, insulting John, and mocking John while introducing himself as Sherlock's arch enemy would, in ANY way, persuade John to tell him anything about Sherlock. 

Whereas, if he had approached John, introduced himself as a worried brother, John would almost certainly have been more inclined to agree. 

And thus we are introduced to the great and brilliant Mycroft Holmes. A greater genius, the books tell us, than Sherlock, but inclined to a lack of energy. Possessed of a great inertia that makes him seldom stray from his gentleman's club. This Mycroft is very different. 

Again, different is not necessarily a bad thing in an interpretation, but I really just... this Mycroft is just... silly.

 

Mycroft lets John go, of course. And on his way back to Baker street, he picks up... his gun. That he has. For some reason.

I mean, I know he has an old service revolver in the original, but I'm pretty sure it's vaguely difficult to get your hands on a handgun in the UK. Even if you're an ex-soldier. 

 

Anyway, when he gets home, we meet Sherlock in a.... mood. I think it's meant to be a version of Holmes' thinking mood, where he curls up on a pile of pillows and smokes ounces and ounces of tobacco. 

And then he asks John to go and get his phone, and send a text on it. 

This rankles, it really does. The original Holmes has strange moods, sometimes barely moving for days on end. But when he is on a case, he is a hive of activity. His brain never stops spinning, he is energetic and alive. 

Sherlock is "too busy thinking" to walk across a room and send a message that will help him solve the case.

 

Just.... ARGH!

 

I know I keep saying "it's an adaptation, you can change things!". But when you change the fundamental characteristics of a character, you're not really... adapting that character! You're creating a caricature of a caricature. 

 

Then, Sherlock reveals that he has the case. Ooh, you know what would be cool? If, when he found it, he called a forensic team to collect it, to carefully preserve the fingerprints on the handle, to remove and study any fibres that were stuck to it. Then they could match any fibres, any hairs, any DNA or fingerprints to a database. That would likely give them the type of vehicle involved, and possibly even a match to a killer.

 

But.... nope. Holmes is meant to be on the forefront of scientific and forensic innovation. He invents a technique for confirming the presence of trace amounts of human blood. Yet Sherlock wilfully destroys evidence! This Sherlock just trampled over the footprints on the muddy park, he just moved the body before it's position could be recorded. He.... messed up.

 

But it's OK, because he called a killer (without telling Scotland Yard, who could probably have traced the phone by now), and now he's trying to meet them.

Obviously the restaurant scene that comes next is full of more queerbaiting. I don't want to talk about that any more. Other people have done reviews specifically focusing on that. I... take a broader view when it comes to breaking down the issues here.

 

Anyway, while Sherlock and John have a conversation that will spawn a tumblr firestorm, they wait for a killer to turn up. 

Something else comes to mind. 4 people have been found dead, each after getting into a taxi. What are the chances that, in every case, no-one knew that person was getting into a taxi, no-one saw that person get into a taxi, and there was no video footage of that person getting into a taxi? We know at least one victim had someone else call the taxi for them. Presumably that was when they were last heard of, so that taxy driver should have been tracked down and interrogated! And then, maybe, they could check the records kept of every taxi journey (because this is a business, you know! They keep records of where they drive, how much they charge, and the credit card details of the passengers!) to see if any taxis had picked people up near the locations where they were last seen? 

And if our killer had, sensibly, chosen not to charge for those final journeys, to make sure there was no record of that drive, the police would still know that they were looking for a taxi driver! The fact that there was no record of a journey they know must have happened (and that a central office must have dispatched our killer to) would make them more suspicious!

 

Basically, no matter what step the killer took, there would be a paper trail showing that his cab was called to pick up the first victim. And he would have to account for his actions. 

This is a really, really easy crime to solve. The killer didn't make a mistake when they picked up a pink suitcase, they made a mistake when they were literally assigned their victims by a central cab booking office!

 

Well, anyway... back to the story. They see a cab pulling away. They chase it. This is kind of a cool scene, though John's "I have the cab number!" is probably more useful in the long term than Sherlock's "I can catch them!" strategy.

And then the coolness, as it is, is undone by Sherlock's failure to realise that... someone has to be driving the cab.

 

I mean... cool.

 

 

Oh, and then it turns out it wasn't important anyway, apparently, and they just give up and go home. 

 

And then John realises. While he was running around, leaping across gaps between buildings... he didn't use his cane. 

 

And thus his PTSD and psychosomatic limp are magically cured, and skip happily off into the sunset together, leaving a 100% cured John behind. And John and Sherlock run home together.

 

Ugh. 

Seriously.

And then it turns out Sherlock planned it all along. He planned to get John into a situation where he would be too distracted to use his walking aid, and then uses the fact that he was successful to justify his assertion that John would be taking the room. 

Because if you have a disabled friend, taking away the things that make them able to walk around to test whether their disability is real or not is.............a good idea? Apparently? And all you have to do to get over your serious health problem, mental or physical, is get so distracted that you... forget about it? And so it vanishes?

I can't explain how deeply disturbing this is. I mean, I remember seeing this and thinking that this wasn't really OK, it's wildly inaccurate, of course, and could be insulting to someone with PTSD. But watching it again... wow. It really is... awful.

 

And then we get to the drugs bust.

And the moment when John learns that Sherlock has a history of drug use. It's... I actually don't mind this too much. I'll get into drugs more later, I think, when it plays more of a part in the story. 

Actually, thinking about it, I really don't know why this drugs bust is here. All it does is create a tense situation for John to find out about Sherlock's habit. 

Oh, and also to introduce the concept of "human eyes + microwave = experiment". Is that three separate times that Sherlock has broken the human tissue act in one episode? Why do the writers feel the need to strongly associate Sherlock Holmes and human tissue?

 

Anyway, Anderson steps in, is all snarky, accuses Sherlock of murder...

And Sherlock says it. "I'm not a psychopath, I'm a high functioning sociopath. Do your research."

 

And... it's cool. Really cool. Highly meme-able.

But I'm afraid... someone didn't do their research. I'm no psychiatrist, I am by no means qualified to make a diagnosis. Which is lucky, as "sociopathy" isn't a medical term that is still in use. What used to be called "sociopathy" is now better termed "anti-social personality disorder". This is a serious personality disorder that predisposes to criminal tendencies. Characteristics include a lack of empathy, inability to control anger, a lack of guilt, an inability to learn from mistakes, difficulty sustaining relationships, exploitation and manipulation of others... (https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/antisocial-personality-disorder/). There is a genetic component, but there is also often a history of adverse childhood events, including alcohol excess in one or both parents, abuse or neglect. 

 

According to the NHS website, you have to show three of the following traits to be diagnosed (I am aware that diagnosis is actually a lot more nuanced than this):

 

Repeatedly breaking the law- Sherlock does... technically break the law a few times in this series. But he also devotes his life to solving crimes. So I'm going to say NO on this one.

 

Repeatedly being deceitful- I...don't think so, actually. Sherlock is really honest, most of the time (too honest, perhaps?). I mean, he lies sometimes, but...NO

 

Impulsivity, inability to plan ahead-Do I even need to say NO to this one? Planning ahead is one of Sherlock's defining characteristics.

 

Irritability and recklessness- Irritability... maybe. Recklessness, probably not. He cares very much about staying alive, and every risk he takes is carefully calculated. MAYBE

 

Reckless disregard for their safety, or the safety of others- um... NO. Again, every risk is calculated. He looks ahead, he decides whether something is worth it or not. And then he acts. He often acts to protect others, and to protect himself. NO

 

Being consistently irresponsible- Again, he calculates risk carefully. He assesses. He sometimes loses track, and becomes too buried in his problem, but he always knows when to pull back.

 

Lack of remorse- Sherlock shows remorse on several occasions. He shows remorse when he realises how much he has put John through. He shows remorse when he put John in danger, and he is kidnapped. He show remorse when he puts John in danger, and he is kidnapped that other time. He shows remorse when one of Moriarty's bombs go off, and people die because he couldn't stay in control.

 

So does Sherlock have antisocial personality disorder, formerly known as sociopathy? I don't think so. 

 

It's another serious psychiatric condition that has been misinterpreted by this programme. Sherlock is socially awkward. He sometimes fails to correctly interpret social cues, fails to anticipate the emotional responses of others, and struggles to understand those complex emotional outbursts when they occur. Whether or not he could be diagnosed with something, I'm not qualified to say. But casually talking about sociopathy as if it's the reason that he can be so brilliant? Nyope. Sherlock, you should do your own research.

 

So, as we begin the last half hour of this episode, we get a humdinger of a moment. Sherlock can't understand why the Pink lady would carve the name of her stillborn daughter into the floor as she died. 

 

"That was ages ago, why would she still be upset?" he exclaims when John suggests that the killer used the death of Rachel to manipulate the Pink lady into killing herself.

 

This line sums up so much of what Sherlock gets wrong about Holmes for me. Sherlock Holmes is a fiercely intelligent man, single minded when he is on the scent, sometimes callous, but never cruel. He understands human pain. On many occasions, he is so moved by the stories killer's tell him that he lets them go, he saves them from the noose and ensures that they are not pursued. Sometimes he forgets to be kind, but he still has the ability to be. Sherlock Holmes would never question the fact that a woman would be upset about her daughter's death. Sherlock Holmes allowed a dying man to get away with murder when he found out that he had done it to save his daughter from being forced into marriage. He allows another killer to move to Africa, when he discovers that the man he had killed had previously killed his sister. Sherlock Holmes understands people. He understands grief, he understands tragedy. 

Sherlock Holmes would never wonder why a woman would be upset that her child died. Never.

 

But in Sherlock, the aim isn't to reproduce Sherlock Holmes. It's to make a cool, edgy character. Or at least to make a character look cool and edgy by surrounding him by IDIOTS who couldn't solve simple crimes, carry out basic investigative techniques, and who can't even follow basic crime scene protocol!

 

Sherlock bounces around the room a bit more. He is rude and shouty and mean. He deduces that the Pink lady was clever, and a moment later a taxi shows up. No-one questions who ordered the taxi, or where it's taking him.

Sherlock is too busy realising that Pink lady planted her phone on the killer. Then realising that "Rachel" was a password that would allow people to track the phone. Thus, clearly, essential to everything. Because, as we all know, it's COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE to get information off a phone without a password. Completely impossible.

It's not like there's an entire branch of forensics dedicated to it.

 

And while Sherlock wonders why the phone seems to be in 221 Baker street, he realises that, just maybe, the fact that a taxi had picked up every single victim shortly before they vanished... might be significant.

 

And look who's just turned up uninvited?

Is it our killer???

Is it, the suspense is killing me? Is it... could it possibly be the taxi driver that they LITERALLY SHOWED US before we'd even met Sherlock Holmes??????

 

Of course it is. Seriously, I wish the whole taxi driver thing had been a misdirect. That would have been really clever, actually. Fans would know to look out for a taxi driver, making someone else the killer would have been fun. 

 

But no, the cabbie did it. And he admits it aloud in a street that has lots of people walking past. 

Then he tries to lure Sherlock into his taxi, promising to show Sherlock what he did to get people to kill themselves.

 

What he does, by the way, is point a gun at them, and tell them to pick a pill at random. This is actually what happened in A Study in Scarlet. The difference is that, in the original, the killer does it once. Only once, giving him a 50% chance of survival. In this version, the killer has already done it four times. 

 

Let's do a little bit of maths, shall we? So, if the odds of getting the safe pill ar 1/2, the odds of getting that result twice in a row are 1/2 x 1/2 = 1/4. The chance of getting the safe pill four times in a row, if this is a random situation, is 1/16, or 6.25%. Doing it 5 times in a row, with Sherlock being the fifth, would be a 3.125% chance. 

 

But the cabbie claims that it isn't 50/50. He claims that, by offering one pill to the victim, and giving them the chance to choose, he can get the victim to end up with the bad pill. He can read people well enough to guess whether they will think he's bluffing, or double bluffing, or... you get the idea. 

I wonder what he talks about with them, to make that decision? He has a few minutes in the back of a cab to learn how intelligent they are, and to guess which way they'll go. And he gets it right every time. Apparently. 

 

Now, whether you believe that or not, there is something that it glaringly obvious.

If his victims all decided to ignore the offered pill, and make a genuinely random decision (as much as a human brain can), he would only have a 6% chance of getting to offer that pill to Sherlock.

 

This is a serial killer who could be defeated with "O U T spells Out!"

 

But... I mean it's stupid. What's even more stupid is Sherlock getting into the car with him. Clearly, Sherlock isn't clever enough to learn what game the Cab driver is playing without it being laid out in front of him. In the original story, he does figure it out. Because the original Holmes is many times smarter than this Sherlock. But anyway, everyone's being a bit silly in this scene. Despite the fact that they have just been informed that Sherlock is actively tracking the killer, the police give up and go home. Despite John telling them repeatedly that the tracker is moving, indicating that, no, the Pink phone did not fall down the back of the sofa in 221b, and that it almost certainly in the hands of a killer.

 

But they dislike Sherlock, so they ignore that.

 

Not to be outdone, the Cabbie goes on to give Sherlock loads of information about Moriarty, without Sherlock even asking about it. He also, despite knowing about Sherlock and deduction etc. leaves family photos out on display. 

 

Basically, everyone has a silly few minutes. And then John runs off after Sherlock, taking a gun in his pocket. Because that is clearly the logical response, even though Lestrade is probably still within shouting distance when he makes that decision. 

 

Once they arrive at the designated murder site, Sherlock is, once more, given an opportunity to call for help. He doesn't. Because... drama, I suppose? 

Oh, also it's apparently really easy to get into any building you like in the evening. And there won't be any people there, or any security. In fact, the doors must have been left wide open, because John mistakenly enters the wrong building. Clearly there was no sign of a break-in that he could use to find the right room.

 

Finally, the murder technique is laid out before us. We don't find out how a cabbie gets his hand on capsules full of poison, or safe ones. 

 

Sherlock does his bit of deduction. Identifies that the Cabbie has an aneurysm (which could probably be treated, by the way). Identifies that he is killing to earn money for his children. Because he has.. and take a deep breath.... a sponsor. A sponsor who, somehow, identified a dying man who wanted to make some money for his kids, and turned him into a serial killer. Can you imagine that leaflet coming through your letterbox?

"Calling all geniuses! Are you tired of working 40 hours a week? Looking for something more flexible? Have you recently received a terminal diagnosis? Call 0118 999 88199 911 97253 to find out how you can become a sponsored serial killer today! (bouses awarded for not revealing the secret identity of your master to consulting detectives)"

 

Anyway, Sherlock sees the murder method, let's us know that the gun is fake, and prepares to call the police to arrest this serial killer. As an audience we can breathe a sigh of relief, that Sherlock isn't as stupid as he seemed. 

 

And then the Cabbie taunts Sherlock. He points out that Sherlock's life must be really boring, and they prepare to take the pills together anyway, despite Sherlock knowing that there's actually no reason to. He is teased into this by the Cabbie saying that he will never find out if he was right or not. Which.. obviously not true. There is such a thing as laboratory testing. Sherlock could get the satisfaction of knowing that he was right without risking death.

 

But they are about to do it anyway, even though it's stupid. It's pointless. It adds nothing. 

 

But it gives John a chance to shoot someone to save Sherlock's life.

 

Mr Cabbie literally dies because Sherlock fancied an adrenaline rush. He takes with him plenty of information about Moriarty. He takes information that Sherlock wants, that he needs. Because Sherlock "will do anything to stop himself from being bored."

 

John shoots an unarmed man who wasn't posing an imminent threat to another. This is otherwise known as murder.

 

Then, to extract information from the dying Cabbie, Sherlock tortures him. Well, this pair were clearly made for each other. 

 

The Cabbie dies. John manages to make his gun vanish. Lestrade claims they have nothing to go on when it comes to finding the shooter. Sherlock is about to reveal all that he has deduced about the serial killer, when he realises that it was probably John. He stops, backtracks, and apparently is never questioned about it again. 

 

John, meanwhile, seems miraculously fine about the fact that he just murdered someone in cold blood, and he doesn't even seem angry that Sherlock put him in a position where he felt he had to. He also doesn't react when Sherlock insists that his life was never in danger, he would never have taken the pill, even though that would remove any defence John had for taking the Cabbie's life. 

 

Anyway, they both seem totally fine with each other's crimes, and they prepare to go for dinner. Then Mycroft shows up, there's a "Ha ha, so you all thought this was a villain?" scene, where the audience is told that, of course, they should never have thought Mycroft was the villain, despite him being set up as such. 

 

We also don't really now why Mycroft shows up. Maybe he just participates in bribery and corruption to stop anyone looking too much into the killing.

 

We are left with a thought about Moriarty. Sherlock has no idea who he is. Again, this is just irritating, because he shows that he really knows NOTHING about the criminal underworld. In the books, he at least figures out who Moriarty is himself.

 

 

But, we have reached the end. Of episode one. Of series one. 

 

Help.

 

The saddest thing for me, is that I used to love this episode. I used to get a shiver down my spine at every reference, every amazing score moment, every fantastic camera angle or brilliant deduction. One of the biggest reasons that I haven't watched Sherlock for several years is that I was worried that the final series would have ruined the rest for me. Unfortunately, I think that that has happened. The rose tinted spectacles are well and truly gone.

 

Is it still good? Well, yes, it is good. It's enjoyable to watch, despite it's flaws. It's many, many flaws. Despite the errors in concept, the execution is almost uniformly fantastic. The acting, the music and the cinematography pull you in, and make this a pleasant thing to watch despite the.... the things that make me really, really irritated. We'll see if that continues as the series goes on.

 

For now, I feel the need to go and read A Study in Scarlet. 

 

Maybe you should too.