Sherlock: The Abominable Bride
Home › Forums › Non-Doctor › TV programmes › Sherlock: The Abominable Bride
This topic contains 123 replies, has 20 voices, and was last updated by Craig 6 years, 2 months ago.
3 May 2016 at 22:50 #52105Anonymous @
I finally have a chance to continue our conversation with my full attention.
You mentioned the excellent cinematography, and this is something that always stands out to me in Sherlock. Another example that I remember in this episode was when the screen flipped over when the time of day was changing. The creators of the show are very original and creative in how they put the final product together.
You also mentioned your interest in my Redbeard Theory. To be honest, my mind is a bit scattered with this, but I will try to explain as much as I can.
I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that Sherlock is not really a “high-functioning sociopath” and even when he seems like a cold character, I do not believe that he is truly heartless or uncaring. We know that Redbeard is a dog that was put down when Sherlock was a kid. We also know, as Mycroft has said, that Sherlock did not have many friends as a kid. His unique mind made it difficult for him to connect with people, and this all leads me to the conclusion that Redbeard was the closest thing Sherlock had to a friend. By losing his dog, it could have caused Sherlock to become scared of getting attached to someone and losing them, too. After he becomes friends with John, John is soon put in danger. Sherlock almost loses him, too. I think that Sherlock is just afraid of caring because he doesn’t want to go through the same emotional trauma that he went through as a kid. Just the mention of the name Redbeard, approximately 25 years later, causes Sherlock to have a look of sadness and loss in his eyes (excellent acting from Benedict btw).
The name Redbeard does keep coming up, and I’m curious as to what the bigger meaning behind it could be.
There was an excellent meta (I’ll attach a link) about Redbeard connecting him to Sherlock’s other brother “the other one”. We don’t know much about either of them, but I’ve noticed that the Sherlock fandom is pretty good at finding evidence to support almost any theory. This one discusses the possibility that Sherlock’s memory of Redbeard is just that…a memory, a false memory in this case. “Redbeard” could be a brother that Sherlock doesn’t even know existed, kind of like when Henry in The Hounds of Baskerville thinks a hound killed his father when actually a man did. This theory is better explained where I first read about it, in the link attached:3 May 2016 at 22:55 #52106Anonymous @
Welcome to the discussion!3 May 2016 at 23:12 #52107Anonymous @
While some people found this episode confusing, I thought it was funny how after the modern scene ending with “I know exactly what he’s going to do next,” Moffat and Gatiss play one final trick on us. Holmes suggests to Watson that the modern story is just how he pictures the future if Watson and he were to live then. And even after that, as the camera pans out, there is a view of the modern Speedy’s Cafe and a bus driving by.
This ending does bring two new topics to mind. The first is how Holmes, when thinking of a name for the case, suggest “the monstrous regiment”. I believe this is referencing the second book in the Mary Russell series. I’ve only read the first book “The Beekeeper’s Apprentice”. It takes place after Holmes has retired to Beekeeping, and I think it is worth taking a look at for those who have not read it.
The second point that comes to mind is about a theme I have noticed throughout the show. Sherlock is often either called a machine or seems more like a computer than a human being. He calls his brain a hard drive, he can “delete” things from his memory, John calls him a machine in TRF, and now Moriarty is now considered the virus in his mind. Ironically, by the end of TRF, John calls Sherlock “The most human…human being.” What I find most interesting about this is how Moriarty could now really be dead, and he is simply the enemy of Sherlock’s mind, the virus in the data. Could a dead man still be the villain of the show? I think that would be cool, as long as the amazing Andrew Scott can still be on the show (just in the mind palace?).4 May 2016 at 05:53 #52113
Perhaps I am being unfair, but what is NOT to get? Confusing? Was it?
Damned if I noticed. I think one has to be Moffatised to understand TAB? *grins*
Missy4 May 2016 at 05:56 #52114
Aha! No, not my thing at all. In fact boooooooooooring!
Thanks for explaining though.
Missy4 May 2016 at 05:57 #52115
Thankx to you also.
Missy4 May 2016 at 05:59 #52116
Join the club m’dear.
Missy4 May 2016 at 06:27 #52117
Sherlock pretends not to be a romantic, and yet he wanted (as has been mentiond above) a Pirate and he loves dancing. A Consulting Detective has, to me, romantic connotations. Writing a piece of music for Mary and John’s wedding, was very romantic, as was throwing his buttonhole to Janine at the reception. Putting all that together, tells me that, in this at least, Sherlock is a fraud – but a clever, caring and sensitive fraud.
As for Redbeard (interesting article btw) there are so many theries, that I shall just wait and see. Perhaps ‘he/she’ was handicapped, and perhaps that is why Mummy gave up her career, or maybe he/she died at birth? Then again, maybe Redbeard was a dog.
None of us know for sure. This is the glory of Steven Moffat, he is so devious and loves to get the fans debating.
Missy4 May 2016 at 09:05 #52119Anonymous @
I was a bit confused by The Abominable Bride. It wasn’t what I expected. And I can understand the lack of ‘likes’ -doesn’t mean I have to like the dislikers, although really that’s not fair either. For instance I prefer Sherlock in the modern format -the technology, the clothing, Mary’s power base…etc. and of course Molly’s role.
I understand some preferred the film version by Moffat instead.
I also understand people don’t like Capaldi and think he’s a bit ‘off’ or not ‘happy’ enough. Personally, I don’t understand that at all and yet if I think hard enough of certain episodes and conversations he’s had, I’ve winced for him and so I can see those who dislike him simply for their point of view. But I don’t share it necessarily.
Not sure what it was with TAB, but it wasn’t what I thought I was going to see. And that can be good: like a purge or a convincing lesson I happen to need at the time. As if being asked “hey, look at this film in this manner, and you’ll see something new.” But I was sceptical. And there’s no compulsion to believe anything one wants -or what Moffat gives us. Happily, I enjoy just about all of it any way. Even if I remain somewhat confused.
It’s like nihilism in that way.
That was an interesting theory as the comment “you’ve upset Mummy” and “look what happened to the other one” impels me to think the script was situated to express a mystery of a kind. However, I recall all sorts of little mysteries in Who that weren’t solved, exactly, and so it’s possible these lines exist to whet the appetite of viewers and create hydrangeas -the ones which change colour depending on the chemicals one adds to soil. I interpret Moffat and his ‘oeuvre’ a bit like that. But your Redbeard theory was the best to date. Thank you.
PuroSolo.4 May 2016 at 23:03 #52132Anonymous @
I get why some people might find the episode confusing, especially when you first watch it and are not expecting the switching between times. I just don’t think it is fair for every review to be people hounding (no pun intended) Steven Moffat over it.
I’m glad you liked the Redbeard theory. I get what you mean about there being things that never led to anything in Doctor Who. I just think this is a probable set up for two reasons. 1) When it was written in Mycroft’s notebook, the camera stayed on the word Redbeard for a pretty long time. 2) There is an interview with Moffat, Gatiss, Sue Vertue, and Amanda Abbington on the Sherlock youtube channel about the newest episode, and although no spoilers are revealed, Redbeard is briefly mentioned. I recommend checking it out.
Also, when I first heard Mycroft mention “the other one” , I was so caught up in the plot that I just considered it a joke and forgot about it. It wasn’t until a few more rewatches that I realized that this was said in the very last episode, and there is still time for something with it to happen.6 May 2016 at 08:44 #52156
I think that Sherlock and the Doctor are similar.
In DW 8 “Into the Dalek” when asked who Clara is, she replies” I’m his carer.” to which the Doctor replie:”Yes, she cares, so I don’t have to.”
In Sherlock’s case, John cares, so that Sherlock doesn’t have to.
We all know that this isn’t strictly true, both of them do care, but have trouble showing it. Even Moriarty backs up this fact.
Missy6 May 2016 at 12:54 #52160Anonymous @
Yeah, I know the Doctor is partially based off of Sherlock Holmes, so they have always been kind of similar. They are especially similar when they are both written by Steven Moffat. This isn’t a criticism towards him; there is a reason for it. As a writer, I know that characters often reflect the author in some way (or at least mine do). I think the Doctor and Sherlock both share a bit of Moffat’s personality.6 May 2016 at 14:49 #52162Pharell, Man! @pharellman
And I think, that even more 12th than 11th, because Scotish pepole are more like Capaldi’s one, I heard. 😛
Of course I’m just joking, but he can’t be just so childish like 11th for every day. 🙂 😛7 May 2016 at 07:19 #52185
Good point, and I think that you are right. it stands to reason that, if only in a small way, a writers characters will reflect him/herself at times.
Missy21 September 2016 at 15:05 #53984Anonymous @
I know this episode aired a while ago. Season 4 is nearly here which is unbelievable, but I just had a thought about Sherlock and his mind palace which I may have already discussed a bit, but I have thought of a scene that I had never even really considered a mind palace scene until now.
The scene I am referring to is from Episode 4, A Scandal in Belgravia, when Sherlock is explaining to Irene Adler how a man died witnessed by a man whose car broke down.
In TAB, almost the entire episode is in Sherlock’s mind palace. In episodes 8 and 9, the viewers are also able to see into Sherlock’s mind palace. In the show, the whole theory behind the mind palace is exaggerated for entertainment and even to move the plot forward. Rather than a memory trick, it has become an entire world inside Sherlock’s head.
In episode 4, the mind palace had not been mentioned by name yet, but I realize now that Sherlock was working through the case in his mind palace with a mind palace version of Irene Adler.
Okay, so this was a mind palace scene. Why does it matter?
It matters because there is something different about this scene and all mind palace scenes written by Steven Moffat (episodes 4, 9 and 10) compared to the normal way Mark Gatiss uses it (episodes 3 and 5).
What is the difference? Drugs.
In episode 4, Sherlock has been drugged by Irene Adler. In episode 9, Sherlock has been using drugs before he was shot. In episode 10, he was on the plane when Mycroft reveals he has been high the whole time.
I think there is a connection between Sherlock’s drug use and his exaggerated version of a mind palace.
To support this, Mycroft says in TAB something along the lines of, “I know what a mind palace can do, and I know what it certainly cannot.”23 September 2016 at 11:35 #54000
Excellent point – and it won an Emmy.
Missy23 September 2016 at 13:04 #54002Anonymous @
I know! I was so happy. Sherlock’s six nominations were one of the only reasons I stayed up to watch the Emmy’s. I was surprised that it actually won, but it definitely deserves the recognition.
Also, have you seen the Sherlock Parody by The Hillywood Show?24 September 2016 at 12:14 #54019
As was I, after so many complaints from so called fans. It was a brilliant piece of writing.
No, I haven’t heard of this. Thank you for mentioning it.
Missy25 September 2016 at 03:15 #54026winston @winston
@missy and @theconsultingdoctor It was good to see the show get the Emmy as it is a brilliant show. I am a fan of Sherlock Holmes in general and I have loved this version from the first time I watched it. Taking this beloved Victorian character and landing him in the 21st century and still keeping the feel of the original stories is due to the amazing writing. The casting is perfect also. I can’t wait for the new episodes.26 September 2016 at 07:34 #54034ichabod @ichabod
@winston I always check in on Holmes versions, to see what other writers/performers find in him. Since the character as ACD wrote him is nearly 100% rationality, people project all sorts of interesting ideas and emotions onto it in more current interpretations. I’m reading (well, skimming) the latest of Laurie King’s meditations on Sherlock’s possible love life in his old age, THE MURDER OF MARY RUSSELL, which I’m finding pretty boring, frankly; I can’t work up much enthusiasm for this extended exploration of Mrs. Hudson’s mildly criminal past and its consequences. But King is a solid writer, so I always look in, at least.
Moffat’s modern Holmes is, for me, not much related to the Holmes I absorbed when I read ACD’s work in my early teens; but that’s okay, I don’t mind when a newer version is well done in its own terms. As Ernest Hemingway, I think, said when somebody lamented to him that “The Sun Also Rises” had been wrekced by its cinematic version, “No, it hasn’t; there it is, on that shelf.” The original Holmes is always there, safe and sound and barely human, no matter what interpretations are made of him latterly. Myself, I love him for his aloofness, his beautiful human embodiment of a hawk with a cold, gold eye observing human affairs with super-human keenness. Brilliant. Maybe matchless.
Been reading some books about hawks, falconry and other forms of “domestication” of predators that aren’t, really, since what’s truly wild tends to stay wild, in the hands of those who respect wildness. Mind you, Holmes puts himself at the service of the enforcement of law, which I suppose is a kind of domestication . . . otherwise, he could well have been — well. Moriarty.26 September 2016 at 08:27 #54037
I too have watched various interpretations, Robert downey Jnr, being the worst, and have found that Jeremy Brett made a superb Holmes – I’ve got the box set.
The Moffat crew haven’t written the stories word for word, they more or less said that, but every story has an element of the original in it. Becasue of them, I’ve re-read all the ACD stories and enjoyed them all over again.
Missy28 September 2016 at 05:57 #54043ichabod @ichabod
@theconsultingdoctor Yes, Sherlock’s mind palace via Moffat is drug-induced hallucination, isn’t it? I don’t see it as a way of remembering things and ideas, which was the original intention of this mental structure as an educational device. It’s much more a twisty, almost artistic version of reality tripped through on drugs, which is a far cry from “and here’s where I keep the Dialogs of Plato, in this Louis XIV dresser of decorated with wooden inlays on themes from Greek vases” kind of thing (I dunno, I never tried the mind palace stratagem, but that’s how I imagine it).
The Doctor’s mental “strong room” or “storm room” is a completely accurate and unchanging replica of his Tardis’s console room, a refuge for thinking his way through a lethal danger, as we see it in “Heaven Sent”. I suppose both of these concepts are versions of the one (historically real) educational device, the “memory palace”. Clever Moffat; playful Moffat.2 January 2017 at 07:04 #549872 January 2017 at 10:49 #54999Craig @craigEmperor
@kharis Your wish is my command. I meant to do it yesterday but ended up rather busy. Enjoy.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.