XistentialAngst's Blog, page 78

“Anyone can walk in anywhere if they pick the right moment.” The Reichenbach Fall and Mary the Stranger

jenna221b:

cheytea7:

jenna221b:

I was re-watching The Reichenbach Fall with @waitingforgarridebs and @victorianlovers tonight and this little exchange caught my eye. It happens when John and Sherlock are discussing Max and Claudette’s kidnapper: 

JOHN: But how did he get past the CCTV? If all the doors were locked …
SHERLOCK: He walked in when they weren’t locked.
JOHN: But a stranger can’t just walk into a school like that.
SHERLOCK: Anyone can walk in anywhere if they pick the right moment. Yesterday – end of term, parents milling around, chauffeurs, staff. What’s one more stranger among that lot? (x) 

And, I started thinking– doesn’t that really sum up Mary’s tactic to make her way into John’s life, creeping in without suspicion (yet)? Loudest Subtext in Television had written on the locked room mysteries= being in love/ affairs of the heart. What if “the doors” here can now equal John’s heart? So now, it becomes: 

Mary walked in when John’s heart was broken, defenses down… Anyone can walk in anywhere if they pick the right moment. John’s day to day routine- work at the clinic, patients milling around, staff. What’s one more stranger among that lot? 

Mary knew how to subtly introduce herself… a stranger slowly becomes a friendly face in the crowd…and then something much more. 

And, just in case there was any remaining doubt left about Mary’s villainy: 

SHERLOCK: [S]He was waiting for them. All [s]he had to do was find a place to hide. (x)

This is an incredible observation! Since we know Mary had her persona for 5 years it truly was like she was waiting for the right moment.

This show has the best subtext I’ve ever encountered.

Thank you!! <3 yes, waiting… watching… 

isitandwonder:sherlock-little-weed:watchthemfall:tinybeehol...

isitandwonder:

sherlock-little-weed:

watchthemfall:

tinybeeholmes:

bakerstreetstorytime:

letsdiscussaboutsherlock:

TELL US

The thing is, this is exactly the way I’ve always expected Benedict to behave regarding Johnlock kisses and sexy times. What’s also pretty obvious to me … Bendict wouldn’t be laughing like that if this was merely about John and Mary, or didn’t link back to the series in any way - he’s very clearly laughing about himself / his character, he’s laughing about Sherlock. About Sherlock in a scene in which his body might be responding. 

“A lot of things are…raised” CAN THEIR INNUENDOS GET ANY MORE BLATANT

I love it because his laugh is almost proof it’s innuendo, it’s a private joke and Mark is egging him on, waiting waiting for him to get it. The way he jumps straight to the defensive “I’m not saying anything” 

Mark is teasing him, because he knows Ben can’t say anything and I love it. That’s exactly the kind of joke he’d make too. There are just two things that put that look of sheer delight on his face, dick jokes and murder. 

He’s such a sweetheart!

gif from @enigmaticpenguinofdeath

First, I love this. Second, I just noticed Mark’s words “a lot of things are resolved.” I hadn’t paid much attention to that before because it’s immediately followed by a dick joke. BUT, “things are resolved” to me heavily implies johnlock. Because what is there really to finally ducking resolve but that? Ok, the Mary subplot needs resolution and she needs to get what’s coming to her. But that’s not what I’d think of first when I think of the thing in the show that needs resolution. Plus, the resolution promise was followed immediately by the dick joke. So. Yeah. To me this points heavily to johnlock confession and bed in S4 (though the sexy stuff will undoubtedly happen off camera.)

sherlockspeare:The first day of their honeymoon

sherlockspeare:

The first day of their honeymoon

About the fake proposal in HLV

welovethebeekeeper:

mysleepyhead:

Re watching HLV, came across a funny thing. It’s not much really. And maybe someone noticed it before and have wrote a meta or something. But I am seeing this for the first time.The ring box with which Sherlock is fake proposing Janine, its interior is white, not much contrast with the ring ( made of platinum and diamond I think ). When John is seeing the ring, you can clearly see the ring..

But when Janine is seeing it, It appears almost empty to us, the viewers.. 

The box looks empty, just like the proposal..

With the top notch camerawork and everything, it is really clever. and not co-incidental. They could always go with a dark interior in contrast with the ring to emphasize it. Or there was really no need to bring the ring in the same frame as John. So you know, The universe is rarely so lazy.. And there are no coincidences.. We know who is really at the opposite end of the ring (when the proposal is real ).. Someone, whose name also starts with a “J” ..

When you look at how the two engagement rings in the show were shown it is remarkable that neither ring was shining or looking particularly beautiful. Sherlock’s ring for Janine was almost camouflaged, as you say, a platinum ring in a white box, not the best display setting. John’s ring for Mary looked antique, maybe his Mother’s ring? It was dark and one of the stones was so poorly lit that it almost disappeared. Even the red velvet lining of the box didn’t make the ring stand out and sparkle. [Love that it is a 3 stone ring, so symbolic of the Sherlock, John and Mary issue] 

Another throw back to ASiP; ‘State of her marriage right there’. Here we have the state of the relationships shown in the rings. Sherlock’s is a camouflage for a case, hidden, hard to see. John’s is three stones, still a third person lurking there, old; relationship is based on his parents marriage, the traditional thing John was expected to do, and the stones look dull; state of the future marriage right there. 

Thanks for this @mysleephead.

Names Are Important: Introduction

heimishtheidealhusband:

Like, stupidly important. This show is a trashpile of metaphors, but some of them are more important – more central – than others. Way back in the day, I talked about primary evidence and secondary evidence, where we have metaphors that are the powerhouse of the subtextual narrative of the show, and the other stuff thrown in there more casually to back it up.

And names are a powerhouse. I’d even say the powerhouse.  You could strip everything else away, call everything else coincidence except for names and the murder/killing metaphors, and you would still have a fully fleshed out subtextual story arc. (The beautiful thing is that we don’t have to do that, but just the fact that we could says a lot.)

What I’m going to do is attempt to compile all the important narrative information about names into one series. I’ve talked about a lot of this before, as have others, but it’s always been thrown into other discussions and I think it deserves a centralized space. Over the course of the next several chapters, I’m going to look at names that show up repeatedly across the show, break down their metaphorical significance, and also talk about the narrative significance of “names” and “identity” as a more general concept and how these concepts might specifically tie in with the subtextual narrative arc in BBC Sherlock.

Sherlock & Humphrey Bogart: “Things I meant to say and never did.”

ninatypewriter:

I don’t know if anyone in the Sherlock fandom has written about this, but I just watched Tokyo Joe (1949), the Humphrey Bogart movie, for the first time, and much to my great shock, I noticed almost as many similarities between Tokyo Joe and Sherlock (BBC) as there are between The Princess Bride and Sherlock.

A line of dialogue at the end of Tokyo Joe made me gasp out loud, when Joe (Humphrey Bogart) says to the great love of his life, his ex-wife, Trina, after he’s been shot, not knowing if he’ll survive: There are “things I meant to say and never did.” Just as Sherlock famously said to John on the tarmac at the end of Sherlock S3 E3 “His Last Vow.”

I’m tagging you, @quietlyprim, in this post, because I think it’s worth analyzing in one of your TJLC videos, and I hope you’ll also share this with the many brilliant Sherlock fandom meta writers who could watch Tokyo Joe and write metas about the many, many Sherlock parallels.

The basics of the plot: In post-World War II, late-1940s Japan – filled with intrigue, and characters who parallel Sherlock, John, Mary, Mycroft, Moriarty, and more – when Joe (Humphrey Bogart) returns to Tokyo, he finds out that the great love of his life, his wife, Trina, hadn’t died during the war. Much to his surprise, she’s alive.

When Joe and Trina reunite, she tells him that during the war she’d been held captive by the Japanese military, gave birth, and then the Japanese military took her baby and forced her to broadcast propaganda aimed at allied troops. Trina (who loves Joe as passionately as he loves her) also tells Joe that she is now married to another man. She doesn’t love him, though, the way she loves Joe. She had divorced Joe after the war only because she thought that he’d abandoned her during the war, but when they meet in Tokyo after the war she learns that Joe hadn’t abandoned her, he actually thought she’d died during the war, and had no idea she’d been held captive. 

Joe is like Sherlock, expecting that John (Trina) will be waiting for him upon his return, and shocked to learn that he/she has moved on. Joe also didn’t know (until Trina tells him during their post-war reunion in Tokyo) that Trina had been pregnant when she was captured, and that the baby girl the Japanese had kidnapped was Joe’s. That baby is now seven years old, and living with Trina and her new husband in Tokyo.

Joe wants Trina to leave her husband and come back to him. There’s a lot of military and government intrigue. Bad guys kidnap Joe and Trina’s daughter. Joe rescues the little girl, but is shot. Trina shows up at the scene. Gravely wounded, Joe has a conversation with Trina, who promises to divorce her husband and come back to Joe. Joe promises that they’ll have a wonderful life, and as he’s gasping, he tells her that there were “things I meant to say and never did.” He’s taken away on a stretcher and, as the movie ends, it’s not clear if he’ll live or die.

Thanks in advance to @quietlyprim and the fandom!

Cool! But I hope Sherlock has a different ending.

A Study in Pink: The primer of everything that is to follow

welovethebeekeeper:

Trust Issues: John, the fan [@delurkingdetective] has trust issues as do we in the writers.


You can read my writing upside down: Yes we can, we can read the underside, the subtext. The upside down of mirrors, foreshadowing and bookends. 


Wrong: The writer’s think everyone else since SACD have been getting this story wrong.


A bit different from my day: Watson encounters Holmes, and yes it is different from Watson’s day, it’s 2010 and same sex relationships are not against the law. 


Oh no I ensured it: The execution of a cheating, murderous, manipulative spouse.


If you’ll be needing two bedroom: Only for a while.


Mrs Turner next door’s got married ones: Mrs Hudson will have married ones by the end of the show.


He’s with me: The story in a nutshell.


We’re done waiting! It’s time to stop the subtext and bring the true story out.


Look at her [at us] really look! Houston, we have a mistake: They have been a couple for over 135 years, and people failed to see it.


What mistake? PINK! Everybody missed the gay.


Might we expect a happy announcement by the end of the week? No, by the end of the series arc.

Mycroft; An enemy: Possibly, may even be probable.

I’m to take you home. Address? Baker Street. 221B Baker Street: John does not give his apartment as his home address, he hasn’t moved in with Sherlock yet. But Home is already there.


You may as well eat. We might have a long wait: You may as well casual date and have sex, I’m not ready, this is going to take time to prepare.


Girlfriend? No, not really my area: I am gay.


So you’ve got a boyfriend then? No: OK, he’s gay. I’d like to be his boyfriend, Vacancy? Yes, score. A vacancy.


I think you should know that I consider myself married to my work, and while I’m flattered by your interest, I’m really not looking for any...: So he is attracted to me, I like that, but I need time. Slow it down. I think this may be something special.


Ready when you are: John’s statement of truth. As soon as you let me know you want it, I’m ready.


Seriously?! This guy, a junkie?! Have you met him? Really look at Sherlock, evaluate the evidence, not the rhetoric.


John, you probably want to shut up now: I need them to think I am a drug user.


And because Sherlock Holmes is a great man. And I think one day, if we’re very, very lucky, he might even be a good one: The writer’s declaration of one of their objectives. They will be showing how John’s influence matures Sherlock into a good man.


Why can’t people think? Why can’t everyone see the subtext? See the obvious relationship in canon?

But this … this is what you’re really addicted to, innit? You’d do anything … anything at all … to stop being bored: Sherlock is addicted to the game not drugs.


Sherlock: Moriarty. John: What’s Moriarty? The basis of the main case running through the show. Not ‘who’ but ‘what’ is Moriarty.

It’s all there folks, all embedded in the first episode. 

Brilliant

welovethebeekeeper:In canon Mycroft Holmes was brilliant, physically lazy, enjoyed playing...

welovethebeekeeper:

In canon Mycroft Holmes was brilliant, physically lazy, enjoyed playing politics with manipulation, ran the British Government from behind the scenes and was the cleverest man in Britain. The character was of his ‘era’, a stalwart of the British Empire, the man at his club who negotiated the lives of millions over a glass of port, and portrayed as being on the ‘good’ or ‘right’ side of events by virtue of his position in the upper echelons of British society. It’s almost a ‘given’ to read him as ‘good’ in the canon, the pastiche, right up until today. He may be of dubious morals to a modern viewer, but he ‘rescues’ and helps his little brother. Is this not an assumption based on an ingrained stereotype, similar to another stereotype we often see veil the true interpretation of characters in Sherlock?

We have the party line on BBCSherlock’s Mycroft from TPTB: He cares for /loves his brother, wants to bring him into the fold/work for the government, he lacks ability to show emotion in a ‘normal’ fashion, and he will always try and protect his brother. Now if the creators are lying about the real purpose of the show concerning Sherlock and John’s relationship, then why do we think they are telling the truth about Mycroft? Two writers on the left side of the political spectrum who are suspicious of men like Mycroft in the hierarchy of power, hell BBC Mycroft is based on Peter Mendelson a shady politician who had to resign twice from office for corrupt dealings. In this era, the big bad isn’t the criminal masterminds running crime syndicates, it’s the criminal masterminds running the governments. Are TPTB adding in another statement to their show on another pertinent issue?

Lets’s look at BBC Mycroft: What does Sherlock think about his brother? After all he knows him best.

Mycroft is huge in Sherlock’s mind, in every way, he is all encompassing, a mega presence in Sherlock’s life. He orchestrates and disciplines. Sherlock is resentful of Mycroft, dislikes him and distrusts him, is in competition with Mycroft intellectually and adores the fact that John Watson doesn’t think very highly of Mycroft, nor is John frightened of ‘The British Government”. Mycroft has had an overwhelming impact on Sherlock’s life since Sherlock was a child, so much so that Sherlock feels and acts like a child when in the presence of his brother. 

Sherlock has been indoctrinated by Mycroft on several key areas; his self esteem [’You stupid little boy’] his emotions [’Caring is not an advantage’] and his self-restraint [’Oh Sherlock what have you done’ “I will always be there for you’ ‘Danger Nights’] In all actuality Mycroft has created problems for Sherlock, roadblocks, which hindered his maturity. Thus, Sherlock is VERY angry at Mycroft, and rightly so.

Mycroft may have even brought Mary into John’s life during Sherlock’s absence in order to ‘save’ Sherlock from himself and all that silly/weak falling in love business. Sherlock knows Mary is the biggest block to John he has ever faced. But looking at it, it feels Mycroftian.

Never fear though, because Sherlock has been saved. Sherlock knows this. And now it’s just a matter of time for events to occur and resolution to ensue. Sherlock tells Mycroft ‘not you’ in his MP and then he chooses John Watson.

I am beginning to believe the Mycroft that Sherlock tells us exists, overlooking the presumed sibling rivalry and familial machinations, forgoing the assumption that Mycroft does everything for Sherlock out of love, but he just gets it wrong. No, Mycroft is controlling and cold, and who else is that way? AGRA. Just as Mary will stop at nothing to keep John, is Mycroft not the very same? He will hurt Sherlock to keep him, as will AGRA with John. This is not love, it’s possession. The evidence is all there.

Interesting! I tend to like Mycroft, but I can see this point of view too.

bilbo-baggins-is-fantastic:Look at this man though!!!!

bilbo-baggins-is-fantastic:

Look at this man though!!!!

the-7-percent-solution:deducingbbcsherlock:smidvargs:—Hav...

the-7-percent-solution:

deducingbbcsherlock:

smidvargs:

—Have you written up your account of the case?


—Yes.


—Modified to put it down as one of my rare failures, of course?


—Of course.

Sherlock: should we name it after this mysterious force we’re fighting against yet still don’t quite fully understand?

John: naw let’s name it after my awful wife lol

Sherlock: *Military kink* *military kink* *Military kink* *Mary is the WORST*

Lol