![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Elementary season 2 Rewatched: First half
Jun. 4th, 2015 10:28 amBeing so much in an Elementary mood lately, I continued with my rewatch and am now marathoning season 2. Which I remembered as the one with the sophomore slump, but upon rewatching find it to be good, definitely better than I remembered. Which might be because rewatching, I'm not waiting for things to happen which won't, and also I'm able to see more patterns during a marathon than on a week to week basis.
Oh, and I skipped episode 2.03, because the mere thought of that one still pushes all my rage buttons. (Other viewers got upset about Mycroft in s2; I was fine with Mycroft, but the shameless US government propaganda and Snowden & Laura Poitras vilification still makes me want to yell "that episode came directly from the Ministery for Truth" at the Elementary writers.) Which means I could go directly from 2.02. to 2.04., both strong character episodes, and presto the "wow, s2, I slandered you in my memory" impression was there. :) Rewatching so so shortly after rewatching s1, I spotted some structural parallels as well; s1 gave us Joan's backstory trauma - the loss of her patient, with the revelation that it was her own choice, not some institutional punishment, which made her abandon her career as a surgeon - early on (Sherlock spots she's been visiting a cemetary in the pilot), and s2 reminds us of it again, complete with cemetary visit, this time shown, as soon as our heroes are back in NY. One reason why I love this show is demonstrated by the way it handles the plot with Joan and Joey, her dead patient's son. ( Which is spoilery. ) It's a lovely example of Elementary type friendship at its best.
Mind you, it doesn't always go so well - this is the season which will end in a split, after all. How to balance friendship with boundaries, various contradictory obligations - to the individual versus to society, or to different people - strikes me as a far more consistent theme than I remembered. The opening episode's title, Step 9, refers to the step in the recovery program that includes making amends to people we've wronged. As I said, 2.02. is an example of Joan navigating her way through a very difficult attempt to do this. With Sherlock, it's more of a multi episode thing, not always in the way he thinks. 2.01 introduces this show's versions of Mycroft and Lestrade. Lestrade, among other things, is another example of Elementary taking up one of Doyle's premises and treating it with the benefit of looking at it more than a century later. Obviously, Elementary does this with Sherlock Holmes as a drug user (and it's not the first version to do so - I think that credit goes to The 7 Percent Solution), something that looks far differently to a present day viewer/reader than it did in the 1890s to Doyle's readers). But it also does it with Lestrade, whom Doyle's A Study in Scarlet introduces as someone who gets the public acclaim for Holmes' deductions on a regular basis. Elementary's Lestrade has gotten addicted to this. The show makes it clear he's not a bad or incompetent cop ( he's right about the case of the week and the identity of the killer), but he's not a genius, either, nor, unlike Joan or later Kitty, willing to put in the extra work of trying to learn Sherlock's methods, and unlike Gregson and Bell, he's after the spotlight because he needs the public admiration by now. Sherlock draws a parallel to his own drug addiction, sees himself as an enabler and feels guilty about it, but that very parallel should have told him that his solution - helping one last time - won't work, not to mention that their situation is far more due to Lestrade's choices than his, and thus the guilt factor is mitigated. But probably because it puts him in a positive role, he's willing to acknowledge it; whereas with Mycroft, he's willing to do anything but, and as a consequence Sherlock's behavior when around Mycroft is a pre-run for his initial reaction after ( a spoilery event in Tremors that happens to another character ) He's at his most childish, immature and "but it's everyone else's fault"-like.
The show never spells out what exactly the reason for the more long term dysfunctionality between these versions of the brothers Holmes is (unless I've forgotten stuff from the later half of the season). The one reason for his long term anger Sherlock gives to Joan this early on is Mycroft's "indolence" (which is actually an ACD Mycroft trait from ACD's Sherlock perspective), but in light of how the rest of the season plays out, this is questionable. (Joan's own theory seems to be standard sibling rivalry due to the fact Mycroft seems to be getting on better with the unseen Holmes Senior.) In the short term, the season opener reveals that ( Sherlock did something spoilery ) as opposed to the Lestrade scenario, where accepting guilt makes him look nobly misguided, accepting blame in the Mycroft case would mean admitting to pettiness, and thus he keeps acting out instead. (And acts not so secretly relieved when Mycroft finally does something petty to him.
Speaking of Mycroft, overall, he has the great problem that the BBC's Sherlock included one of the most memorable Mycrofts in adaptional history, and Elementary's version is not just very different but even within the show's own universe not one of the most compelling characters. Then there's the part where his motivations are kept deliberately opaque until the last few episodes of the season, which works for some characters in other stories, but these are usually trickster archetypes (a great counter example of a character for whom the reveal of the true motivation very late in the season works would be Rumplestilskin in season 1 of Once upon a Time), and Mycroft isn't positioned as a trickster in this story, or an antagonist. (Though the show tries a reverse of the big season 1 twist with him, to wit: ( Spoilers. ) All this being said, what he is does work for me within the story. Making Mycroft's public identity a restauranteur and the Diogenes a restaurant is a clever update of Mycroft's Victorian cover of the gentlemen's club. He's also another example of Sherlock's boundary issues and problem with accepting people within his inner circle to be other than he wants them to be; with hindsight, Sherlock's umbrage at Mycroft's choice of profession, treating this as a personal insult almost, isn't that different from his reaction to Joan's late season decision to ( do a spoilery thing ) Mycroft's low key demeanour and lack of flamboyance make him, in this day and age, actually more credible as ( the spoilery obvious ) As to what the most complained about Mycroft issue was in season 2: ( it's spoilery. )
2.04., Poison Pen, offers another variation of the "what do we owe each other/ different claims/negotiating guilt" theme, via one of the strongest cases of the week/guest characters. It also, which I had forgotten when I wrote in my s1 rewatch post that we never find out for sure whether or not Sherlock was telling the truth to Adam in 1.03, clarifies that yes, he had been telling the truth: i.e. the "getting viciously beaten up on a regular basis at school as a child" is canon. (BTW, 2.01 also prevents another obvious question in this context by letting Sherlock mention he and Mycroft went to different boarding schools.) This is the episode where Sherlock discovers that the main suspect is none other than his former teenage pen pal. ( And now it gets spoilery. )
The show plays with different possible mentor scenarios for Sherlock in s2 before committing him to one in s3 with Kitty; this offer at the end of 2.04 is one of them, and then later in 2.11. the introduction of Randy as a sponsee. It's a bit frustrating to me that we never find out what became of Randy in s3 and that Graham isn't heard of again, either, but otoh, narratively I understand it, because Sherlock isn't quite there yet in s2, though he makes attempts. The clearest way the show signals him still having a way to go is by setting up the Bell mini arc an episode before it starts via Sherlock alienating yet another copper, which leads to the argument between him and Joan where she says she knows he can be polite, he's been it to her, and it wouldn't cost him anything to be thus with the people they work with, and him insisting on her being exceptional. When I heard this the first time back when, I groaned and muttered, "Sherlock, this is Moriarty thinking". (And of course before long we'll find out they're still in correspondance in more ways than one.) (Incidentally, a good example of him being able to restrain himself for someone other than Joan if he so chooses happens in the Gregson episode of the season, An Unnatural Arrangement, which comes earlier. He figures out Gregson's marital problems and still doesn't blurt them out in front of everyone. He picks up on Gregson being torn about whether or not to make a request and waits until they're alone before he brings this up. And he even manages to be supportive instead of overbearing in his final advice to Gregson.) The narrative promptly brings on the karmic payback via the Bell arc. I seem to recall some complaints about Tremors, the episode which starts it, at the time to the effect that the actual event triggering it isn't really Sherlock's fault. ( To recapitulate in case you've forgotten. ) But as in the previous examples, guilt isn't always legal. Yes, the incident in question was the criminal's fault, but it happens in an overall context of Sherlock considering himself above any of the rules the NYPD is bound to re: treatment of suspects, being unable to restrain himself from one last disdainful quip, and, something very important to Bell's later reaction, unwilling to face the consequences if they include condemnation by people he actually cares about. ( Spoilerly example. ) In conclusion: Sherlock Holmes is really, rally bad at feeling guilty if the guilt in question isn't off the type that allows him to take on a heroic role in dealing with it.
I had misremembered something about Moriarty in s2, it turns out; in my recollection, the montage where we find out that ( something spoilery is the case ) Otoh the episode itself did confirm my impression that while Moriarty is by now very interested in Joan, Joan really couldn't care less beyond how this impacts Sherlock. She's also remarkably unfreaked by the large portrait.
Now the near mid s2 episode where Joan is really affected by a guest character from the past is the one where one of the suspects is a former client of hers from her sober companion days, and it's a welcome reminder of how seriously Joan takes her professional ethics. Not to mention that again, the show offers her a dilemma situation. ( Spoilery dilemma ensues. )
A few more trivia observations:
- the depiction of the police in this show really is very 90s, all being said and done; in the Gregson episode when Sherlock and Joan go through Gregson's file Joan asks "did you know the Captain turned down a promotion because he didn't want to work in Internal Affairs?", which, especially bearing in mind a certain s3 episode, had me groan again, because seriously, writers, Internal Affairs is more than direly necessary given the current day police behavior
- Gregson and his wife mention "the kids", so I'm assuming Hannah has a sibling?
- early s2 isn't as blatant about getting JLM shirtless as early s1, but it does happen.
And lastly: I usually avoid spoilers, but was glad nonetheless about the casting spoiler for s4 which slipped in. ( Casting spoiler is awesome )
Oh, and I skipped episode 2.03, because the mere thought of that one still pushes all my rage buttons. (Other viewers got upset about Mycroft in s2; I was fine with Mycroft, but the shameless US government propaganda and Snowden & Laura Poitras vilification still makes me want to yell "that episode came directly from the Ministery for Truth" at the Elementary writers.) Which means I could go directly from 2.02. to 2.04., both strong character episodes, and presto the "wow, s2, I slandered you in my memory" impression was there. :) Rewatching so so shortly after rewatching s1, I spotted some structural parallels as well; s1 gave us Joan's backstory trauma - the loss of her patient, with the revelation that it was her own choice, not some institutional punishment, which made her abandon her career as a surgeon - early on (Sherlock spots she's been visiting a cemetary in the pilot), and s2 reminds us of it again, complete with cemetary visit, this time shown, as soon as our heroes are back in NY. One reason why I love this show is demonstrated by the way it handles the plot with Joan and Joey, her dead patient's son. ( Which is spoilery. ) It's a lovely example of Elementary type friendship at its best.
Mind you, it doesn't always go so well - this is the season which will end in a split, after all. How to balance friendship with boundaries, various contradictory obligations - to the individual versus to society, or to different people - strikes me as a far more consistent theme than I remembered. The opening episode's title, Step 9, refers to the step in the recovery program that includes making amends to people we've wronged. As I said, 2.02. is an example of Joan navigating her way through a very difficult attempt to do this. With Sherlock, it's more of a multi episode thing, not always in the way he thinks. 2.01 introduces this show's versions of Mycroft and Lestrade. Lestrade, among other things, is another example of Elementary taking up one of Doyle's premises and treating it with the benefit of looking at it more than a century later. Obviously, Elementary does this with Sherlock Holmes as a drug user (and it's not the first version to do so - I think that credit goes to The 7 Percent Solution), something that looks far differently to a present day viewer/reader than it did in the 1890s to Doyle's readers). But it also does it with Lestrade, whom Doyle's A Study in Scarlet introduces as someone who gets the public acclaim for Holmes' deductions on a regular basis. Elementary's Lestrade has gotten addicted to this. The show makes it clear he's not a bad or incompetent cop ( he's right about the case of the week and the identity of the killer), but he's not a genius, either, nor, unlike Joan or later Kitty, willing to put in the extra work of trying to learn Sherlock's methods, and unlike Gregson and Bell, he's after the spotlight because he needs the public admiration by now. Sherlock draws a parallel to his own drug addiction, sees himself as an enabler and feels guilty about it, but that very parallel should have told him that his solution - helping one last time - won't work, not to mention that their situation is far more due to Lestrade's choices than his, and thus the guilt factor is mitigated. But probably because it puts him in a positive role, he's willing to acknowledge it; whereas with Mycroft, he's willing to do anything but, and as a consequence Sherlock's behavior when around Mycroft is a pre-run for his initial reaction after ( a spoilery event in Tremors that happens to another character ) He's at his most childish, immature and "but it's everyone else's fault"-like.
The show never spells out what exactly the reason for the more long term dysfunctionality between these versions of the brothers Holmes is (unless I've forgotten stuff from the later half of the season). The one reason for his long term anger Sherlock gives to Joan this early on is Mycroft's "indolence" (which is actually an ACD Mycroft trait from ACD's Sherlock perspective), but in light of how the rest of the season plays out, this is questionable. (Joan's own theory seems to be standard sibling rivalry due to the fact Mycroft seems to be getting on better with the unseen Holmes Senior.) In the short term, the season opener reveals that ( Sherlock did something spoilery ) as opposed to the Lestrade scenario, where accepting guilt makes him look nobly misguided, accepting blame in the Mycroft case would mean admitting to pettiness, and thus he keeps acting out instead. (And acts not so secretly relieved when Mycroft finally does something petty to him.
Speaking of Mycroft, overall, he has the great problem that the BBC's Sherlock included one of the most memorable Mycrofts in adaptional history, and Elementary's version is not just very different but even within the show's own universe not one of the most compelling characters. Then there's the part where his motivations are kept deliberately opaque until the last few episodes of the season, which works for some characters in other stories, but these are usually trickster archetypes (a great counter example of a character for whom the reveal of the true motivation very late in the season works would be Rumplestilskin in season 1 of Once upon a Time), and Mycroft isn't positioned as a trickster in this story, or an antagonist. (Though the show tries a reverse of the big season 1 twist with him, to wit: ( Spoilers. ) All this being said, what he is does work for me within the story. Making Mycroft's public identity a restauranteur and the Diogenes a restaurant is a clever update of Mycroft's Victorian cover of the gentlemen's club. He's also another example of Sherlock's boundary issues and problem with accepting people within his inner circle to be other than he wants them to be; with hindsight, Sherlock's umbrage at Mycroft's choice of profession, treating this as a personal insult almost, isn't that different from his reaction to Joan's late season decision to ( do a spoilery thing ) Mycroft's low key demeanour and lack of flamboyance make him, in this day and age, actually more credible as ( the spoilery obvious ) As to what the most complained about Mycroft issue was in season 2: ( it's spoilery. )
2.04., Poison Pen, offers another variation of the "what do we owe each other/ different claims/negotiating guilt" theme, via one of the strongest cases of the week/guest characters. It also, which I had forgotten when I wrote in my s1 rewatch post that we never find out for sure whether or not Sherlock was telling the truth to Adam in 1.03, clarifies that yes, he had been telling the truth: i.e. the "getting viciously beaten up on a regular basis at school as a child" is canon. (BTW, 2.01 also prevents another obvious question in this context by letting Sherlock mention he and Mycroft went to different boarding schools.) This is the episode where Sherlock discovers that the main suspect is none other than his former teenage pen pal. ( And now it gets spoilery. )
The show plays with different possible mentor scenarios for Sherlock in s2 before committing him to one in s3 with Kitty; this offer at the end of 2.04 is one of them, and then later in 2.11. the introduction of Randy as a sponsee. It's a bit frustrating to me that we never find out what became of Randy in s3 and that Graham isn't heard of again, either, but otoh, narratively I understand it, because Sherlock isn't quite there yet in s2, though he makes attempts. The clearest way the show signals him still having a way to go is by setting up the Bell mini arc an episode before it starts via Sherlock alienating yet another copper, which leads to the argument between him and Joan where she says she knows he can be polite, he's been it to her, and it wouldn't cost him anything to be thus with the people they work with, and him insisting on her being exceptional. When I heard this the first time back when, I groaned and muttered, "Sherlock, this is Moriarty thinking". (And of course before long we'll find out they're still in correspondance in more ways than one.) (Incidentally, a good example of him being able to restrain himself for someone other than Joan if he so chooses happens in the Gregson episode of the season, An Unnatural Arrangement, which comes earlier. He figures out Gregson's marital problems and still doesn't blurt them out in front of everyone. He picks up on Gregson being torn about whether or not to make a request and waits until they're alone before he brings this up. And he even manages to be supportive instead of overbearing in his final advice to Gregson.) The narrative promptly brings on the karmic payback via the Bell arc. I seem to recall some complaints about Tremors, the episode which starts it, at the time to the effect that the actual event triggering it isn't really Sherlock's fault. ( To recapitulate in case you've forgotten. ) But as in the previous examples, guilt isn't always legal. Yes, the incident in question was the criminal's fault, but it happens in an overall context of Sherlock considering himself above any of the rules the NYPD is bound to re: treatment of suspects, being unable to restrain himself from one last disdainful quip, and, something very important to Bell's later reaction, unwilling to face the consequences if they include condemnation by people he actually cares about. ( Spoilerly example. ) In conclusion: Sherlock Holmes is really, rally bad at feeling guilty if the guilt in question isn't off the type that allows him to take on a heroic role in dealing with it.
I had misremembered something about Moriarty in s2, it turns out; in my recollection, the montage where we find out that ( something spoilery is the case ) Otoh the episode itself did confirm my impression that while Moriarty is by now very interested in Joan, Joan really couldn't care less beyond how this impacts Sherlock. She's also remarkably unfreaked by the large portrait.
Now the near mid s2 episode where Joan is really affected by a guest character from the past is the one where one of the suspects is a former client of hers from her sober companion days, and it's a welcome reminder of how seriously Joan takes her professional ethics. Not to mention that again, the show offers her a dilemma situation. ( Spoilery dilemma ensues. )
A few more trivia observations:
- the depiction of the police in this show really is very 90s, all being said and done; in the Gregson episode when Sherlock and Joan go through Gregson's file Joan asks "did you know the Captain turned down a promotion because he didn't want to work in Internal Affairs?", which, especially bearing in mind a certain s3 episode, had me groan again, because seriously, writers, Internal Affairs is more than direly necessary given the current day police behavior
- Gregson and his wife mention "the kids", so I'm assuming Hannah has a sibling?
- early s2 isn't as blatant about getting JLM shirtless as early s1, but it does happen.
And lastly: I usually avoid spoilers, but was glad nonetheless about the casting spoiler for s4 which slipped in. ( Casting spoiler is awesome )
