Yes, this post is about Sherlock. Specifically, about the reason for all of those pesky set design flaws that grew larger and larger as series 4 progressed.
For example, the skull picture we normally see…
…turns into this.
Or when Ella’s office looked like this…
…but turned into this.
There are hundreds of examples but how about simply one more.
John’s flat looked like this…
…but turned into this.
If you watch Many Happy Returns, which takes place before Series 3, you’ll see John’s front door doesn’t actually exist under the staircase – that was an unnecessary change in Series 4.
So what do all of these changes have to do with making an impression on the audience? Well. Everything.
When you want to get a group of people to doubt their own memory – or to plant new ones – you have to change things about what they already know, but don’t let on that you’ve changed anything.
And who does this for a living?
Derren Brown, the illusionist who had a cameo in The Empty Hearse. He’s also a very good friend of Mark Gatiss’. He has a fascinating video you can watch about this exact techniqueI’m explaining. By changing details visually, one can change how people doubt their own abilities to perceive reality, and also question their own memories.
Do you know all the outrageous things series 4 fed us?
– Mary is just an ordinary housewife with a good heart – John would never save Sherlock from a serial killer – John would beat Sherlock senseless – Sherlock simply needs love from family to complete him – John has a bunch of friends that love to look after his baby – John would blame Sherlock for any harm befalling Mary – John would easily forgive Mary for shooting his best friend in cold blood – Mary knows Sherlock and John better than anyone ever could
These things blatantly contradict everything we’ve ever known about these characters. Still don’t believe Mary is a manipulative psychopath? Go read the HLV script; it just made its rounds on the internet today.
You’ve been wondering why series 4 is so screwed up, narratively and visually? It has a purpose. It is to make the audience doubt – to make the audience doubt their own ability to comprehend reality.
Is it working?
That last sentence there? There’s a word with that exact definition: gaslighting.
Moftiss are gaslighting us, both on and off screen. There are the textual examples above. And there are all the instances at various q&a sessions where people are made to feel ashamed and embarrassed after asking them about whether a subtextual romantic relationship will ever become openly, indisputably textual. Because we’re “imagining things” and “reading into it too much” - we’ve been repeatedly made to question our perceptions and, indeed, reality.
This is seriously pathetic, but the reason I’m running dreadfully late to work right now is because I dreamt the entire, and I mean entire, fucking episode 4 of Sherlock and I didn’t want it to end. It was beautiful. It was gripping and thrilling, it referenced parts from previous episodes that hadn’t yet been explained and tied everything up neatly. It was still more Bond than usual, but it worked well. It was the happiest dream I’ve had in a long time because I felt such joy knowing that Moftiss finally did right by us and that we as a fandom were right by calling them out on the clusterfuck that is TFP and expecting more from them.
So imagine my bitter disappointment when I woke up and realised that my resting brain is a better screenwriter than the men who run what were once two of the UK’s biggest series. /sigh
