A Close Reading of Sherlock S4 Panel (with Benedict)

tetragon4:

Okay, let’s
do this! Although I was somewhat underwhelmed by the teaser, I decided to give
the panels a try. People have been mentioning snippets here and there, but I
couldn’t really get a grasp if what is being discussed is actually subtext or “plaintext.”

So, I am
much more hyped now that I’ve seen the panel, especially because I decided to
focus on the scenes in which Mark or Steven intervened. Benedict truly doesn’t
know when to shut up, does he? It’s such a lovely picture, him blabbing away
and away, and people attempting to shut him up by shouting random words.

For reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwE40X8sF6o&feature=youtu.be .

Here’s my
list of noteworthy elements in the “big panel”:

BC: A lot
of things come home to roost which is fantastically exciting. But it’s-

MG: Full of
chickens.

BC: It’s
full of rooks, ravens,

SV: birds

BC: chickens.

This is
definitely nonsense, because Mark hastily corrected the direction of Benedict’s answer. In
English, there’s the phrase “to come back to roost” which is a synonym for to
revenge something or somebody. I am taking the liberty to disregard the “we are
talking about birds” part, and I assume that this is what Benedict actualy intended to
say. Right now, there are three characters who have something in their past
that may come to haunt them: Mary, Sherlock, and Mycroft.

It is quite
certain that Mary’s past catches up to her. People have been talking about this
since HLV aired, and the teaser confirmed it. However, it is not clear whether
she actively sought out trouble once again, or if the “big bad” has it out for
her and followed her to London. It could be a combination of the two of them:
This “reminder of her past” causes her to lose the child, she then decides to
take revenge. It wouldn’t surprise me, she never took me as the repentant assassin
(see What Mary Doesn’t Want).

Secondly,
there’s Sherlock. Actually, I can only speculate about what could be catching
up to him. For instance, the drug abuse could affect him in a bad way. He is no
longer in his “youth” when it is easier to bounce back, and there could be serious
side effects, apart from the addiction itself. Then there’s the possibility of
PTSD, seeing as that he suffered at least torture during the Great Hiatus.
Also, he killed Magnussen, that Is something that could have serious repercussions, too. Right now, he is at the mercy of those that called him back.

Then there’s
Mycroft. Due to the teaser, we know that he did something that enrages Mrs.
Hudson. It is unclear whether that action happened in the past or
in s4 itself. Mycroft may have contributed to “the other one’s” death/exile,
which hurt Sherlock. Or Mrs. Hudson finds out that Mycroft used Sherlock in his
game against Magnussen (See my meta The Problem with Mycroft II (Appledore)). All of these are actions that he took in the past. However, there is also
the possibility that he will sell out Mary, or protect the person who causes
John’s accident/Mary’s death/the baby’s death. If he does, I am sure that his
motive will be to protect Sherlock. With Mycroft, it’s always been about
Sherlock. Magnussen knew that (see The Problem With Mycroft I ).

Then next
thing I noticed is when the interviewer talks about how the show deals with
addiction. If you take a close look at Mark and Steven’s reaction, you will
notice that they are amused and at ease with this particular question. Mark
even shrugs and raises an eyebrow. He actually loses his permanent mask of
forced concentration to keep a tight lid on the information about s4. This is my
subjective interpretation, but his behaviour doesn’t remind me of acting. This gesture is directed
at Steven, not at the interviewer. It’s like an insider joke. Due to that, I am
inclined to disregard Sherlock’s addiction as the “thing that will come to
haunt Sherlock.”

Recently,
some fans have been voicing the possibility that the “novel interpretation”
that Steven and Mark have been aiming for is a more human version of Sherlock
Holmes, and that they wanted to talk about mental health and drug abuse. These
gestures seem to deny that, in my opinion. Not that I was a believer, anyway.
BBC Sherlock is actually quite flippant when it comes to dealing with mental
health, think of how PTSD, depression, drug abuse, nicotine addiction,
drinking, and antisocial behaviour disorder is dealt with. This is not the main
message of the show. At least, I hope it’s not.

Third noteworthy moment of the panel:

When the
interviewer asks Amanda about the thumb drive, Mark already raises his hand to
intervene. This is obviously a critical topic for him: When Amanda answers
from a personal rather than a story-related perspective, he lets it slide, Mark doesn’t “steal” her turn (yet).

AA: I think
it’s really cool that he never reads it. You know. That’s a really good-. A
really interesting. Um. It just means John’s. John’s moral.

MG: It’s
just full of cat videos.

AA: Yeah.
And pictures of my puppy.

This
snippet is more interesting than it might appear at first glance. Let me
attempt a close reading of what is truly happening. Amanda says that John didn’t
look at the thumb drive. That in itself is okay with Mark. He doesn’t show any
sign of interfering yet. Then Amanda is struggling for words. It shouldn’t
matter which adjective she uses, right? But she corrects herself. Therefore, it
is fair game to ask ourselves why it is not a “good thing” that John “burnt the
thumb drive.” This actually fits quite nicely with the theory that John burnt a
substitute rather than the real deal. So, if he didn’t read the files, then we
must ask ourselves, what did he do with the real thing?

Give it to
Mycroft, maybe?

That would
be the moral thing, wouldn’t it? Especially after Mary shot Sherlock in order
to keep her secrets safe. And there’s the baby which could be endangered by her
past.

This, of
course, is merely a subjective reading of Amanda’s words. However, it is quite
interesting that she corrects her own choice in words. And, once she talks
about John’s “morals”, Mark interferes. He takes the question away from her. In
fact, he turns the focus away from John and towards the content of the thumb
drive, something that is particularly interesting when you think about the
fandom’s suspicions that the thumb drive might have been empty. To me, that is
very telling, indeed. There was no need to redirect the answer towards the
content unless he preferred that to talking about John’s actions. Mark then
relaxes again once Amanda talks about how she played Mary in s3.

Fourth instance:

Later,
Steven answers a question about how HLV suddenly turns dark.

SM: … and
then she turns around, and everything you’ve been told up until that point is a
dirty LIE. Which I- I always liked that to happen.

(Mark puts
fingers on table, knocks)

SM: At some
point. Caused that’s the truth of your life. Everyone’s lying.

(Mark pulls
hand back)

So, this
might just have been a quirk, but I thought it quite unusual for Mark to knock
on the table. Playing with one’s fingers, maybe changing positions of hands,
that’s usual for people. Even knocking with your fingertips is still normal if a sign of impatience,
but Mark turns his hand into a loose fist before knocking on the table with his
knuckles. That seems too deliberate to be just a quirk. Right now, I cannot
find a reasonable interpretation of what he was telling Steven to be careful
about. I simply don’t have enough data for that. I can only assume that he
feared that Steven might reveal something else that Mary lied about. Maybe the
pregnancy. Or it is his choice in adjective that Mark was nervous about, “dirty” implies a value judgement
on Steven’s part. It contradicts Sherlock’s blasé way of talking about Mary’s
past.

Following that, they talked about Mycroft’s love for Sherlock:

MG: Of
course he loves him. It’s just-, like he…

BC: And
that goes both ways.

It’s quite interesting
that Benedict turns this question towards Sherlock’s feelings for Mycroft.
Until this point in the narrative arc, Sherlock never had to prove his feelings
for Mycroft who is not even his pressure point. So, why is this on Benedict’s
mind? Probably because this is part of the “evolving relationships” and “resolving
issues” in s4. Due to something that happens in s4, Sherlock is confronted with
his feelings for Mycroft.

It has been speculated that Mycroft may die or risk
his life for his brother – that is certainly possible, but I doubt that.
Mycroft is too important to die (yet).  Besides, Mofftiss have an awful track record of
killing people off for good. However, Mycroft might almost die. The following
conversation turns back to how Mycroft feels during s1. Both writers talk about
Mycroft actively, rather than as if he was a passive character on the sides. I
suspect that in s4, he will therefore take a more active role. Which supports
the idea that Mycroft could be one of the characters whose past catches up to
him.

They emphasise that the dog is a bloodhound. This is no news, but it confirms that it is supposed to be Toby of The Sign of Four. And Benedict
seemed quite pissed off with the dog. Maybe he’s a cat person. It is also
interesting that Mary talks about how she handled the dog in great detail.

One of the
most interesting aspects of the panel is the obvious contradiction between the
bloodhound comment and Mary’s “pregnancy.” On one side, the panel agrees that
she is “pregnant forever”, which would indicate that she is pregnant until the
end of e1, at least. On the other hand, the pictures that showed Toby also
included a shot of John carrying the baby. Ben and Amanda never mention Martin
whilst talking about the dog, which could mean that John was not actually in
the scenes, and that the baby was merely bait for the photographers. Which is
not unusual for the cast: During the filming of s3, Mark and Andrew dressed up
as Mycroft and Moriarty to shake hands in order to fool the photographers. This
might support the theory that the baby was fake.

This is then followed by this snippet after the panel talks in great detail about working with babies:

SM: Do you
know how little you are learning about series 4?

(AA and MG
laughing their heads off)

SM: We are
actually talking about working with children and animals.

Very
interesting, seeing as that they confirmed just minutes before that they did
not really work with animals. The dog refused to participate, therefore
Mark and Steven had to rewrite the entire scene to exclude the dog. If they
didn’t really work with children, either, the babies could have been part of
some Mind Palace scenes/John’s dreams.

This is all for this panel. Quite a lot food for thought. I don’t feel any wiser, but I feel like I could puzzle out the actual plot if I saw e1 now. The panel narrowed down the possible paths s4 can take.

Some interesting points here.  I do think Martin/John was as integral a part of those bloodhound scenes as Mary and Sherlock–too much setlock evidence to think otherwise.

However, this:

SM: … and then she turns around, and everything you’ve been told up until that point is a dirty LIE. Which I- I always liked that to happen.

(Mark puts fingers on table, knocks)

SM: At some point. Caused that’s the truth of your life. Everyone’s lying.

(Mark pulls hand back)

Is interesting. Very possibly, what Mark feels is a spoiler here, is Stephen’s assertion that “everything you’ve been told [about Mary] is a dirty lie”. This is certainly a harsher indictment of her character than the “maybe she’s forgiven” they left S3 with, hugs at the tarmac, baby on the way et al. Thus this is a potential spoiler for a full-blown evil!Mary in S4. (Which is absolutely what I think will happen.)