Tuesday, March 10, 2015

Elementary - S3E16 - "For all you know." - and not much to say.

I almost didn't review this episode. From a Canonical or Sherlockian point of view there isn't much to review. Oh, sure we can really dig and 'play the game' (no capital letters this episode) and come up with some good discussion points, but for me this is one of the least Canonical of all the episodes.

The acting by all parties was up the the higher standards of most of the episodes. And the plot and crime were not without interest.
But without a doubt, the episode could have put any other names to the characters and in would not have made much difference.

Holmes is accused of murdering a young women several years before we meet him, when his drug habit was almost totally to the point of consuming him. He has no memory of the time and believes himself capable of perhaps having done it. Watson is convinced otherwise.
Now this story line could have been interesting if it had been handle in a more Sherlockian kind of way. But instead the plot fell along the lines of the oft repeated scenario of a crocked politician. We have seen that plot devise way to many times already.

I have never liked the consistent reference to the drug habits of Mr. Holmes that sometimes pops up way to often in this series, especially to how addictive Holmes was. To much of his personality in Elementary is determined by that, and it has become tiresome, at least for me.

So on that note, I can only give this episode, for it's lack of really much to do with Sherlock Holmes, even more so than usual;


We just have to quit cutting this show Sherlockian slack.

11 comments:

  1. Happy to see your thoughts regarding this show's (supposed) credibility as an "adaptation" of Sherlock Holmes.

    B2B.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, when all you can do is list the same Sherlockian references over again and add no new ones, it becomes hard to play the game.
      Even the discussion points were ones I have used before for the show.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Can't agree with you more. The show has repeated the following references over and over again:
      1. The locks on the wall
      2. Sherlock waking up Joan early (once to Reveille on the bugle)
      3. Single stick practice on the dummy

      It is as if the writers cannot (or) would not be bothered to read the Canon to include more/better references. One of the worst nods was a character named Mr Stapleton (from HOUN), who is referenced a number of times in Season 1 Episode # 23 "The Woman". Of course, we never get to meet him. Only the writers can explain why they used that name so randomly...

      B2B.

      Delete
    4. You are right, and there are more.

      Delete
  2. Miller's assault was very similar to the one Holmes suffered in ILLU. As I am constantly working these days, I only get to see an episode once this season, as opposed to the multiple times of previous seasons, so will I'm under the impression there were one or two more, I can't remember what they are. I must say I like this episode more than you (three pipes on the SHSoStC scale), but you are right about the solution. I also must say that I think the show has struck the right balance on the use of Holmes' addiction, but I'm fine with the premise of show (Watson's weening Homes of "the drug mania which had threatened once to check his remarkable career") but I can understand why some don't like it. The most recent podcast of the Baker Street Babes had an interview with Adam Christopher, the author of the first _Elementary_ tie-in novel. He had some interesting opinions on "playing the game" with _Elementary_.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There were a couple more, mostly ones we've discussed before, and have been used often.
      I admit, the drug issue is of a personal dislike, but it does make one question how dependent the Canonical Holmes was at one time on the drugs. Today I am going to see how long in Canonical years Holmes drug habit was mentioned.

      I will check out BBB's most recent.

      Delete
    2. While Watson declares Holmes drug-free in STUD, in FIVE Holmes and Watson reference Watson's list from STUD:
      "If I remember rightly, you on one occasion, in the early days of our friendship, defined my limits in a very precise fashion."
      "Yes," I answered, laughing. "It was a singular document. Philosophy, astronomy, and politics were marked at zero, I remember. Botany variable, geology profound as regards the mud-stains from any region within fifty miles of town, chemistry eccentric, anatomy unsystematic, sensational literature and crime records unique, violin player, boxer, swordsman, lawyer, and self-poisoner by cocaine and tobacco. Those, I think, were the main points of my analysis." FIVE. In one of the pair's last cases, drugs are obliquely mentioned: "As an institution I was like the violin, the shag tobacco, the old black pipe, the index books, and others perhaps less excusable." CREE.

      Delete
    3. I also did some research and Canonical Holmes' drug habit covers more time than I like to admit. Something I am probably blocking out because I don't like that side of it. But as you mentioned, maybe Elementary is handling that part well.
      Just my aversion to that discussion I guess.

      Delete
  3. I think it is rather silly to complain about the use of consistent character traits. Yes, Miller wakes Liu up, as Holmes was want to do to Watson. It had a good character pay-off with Liu waking up Miller with a satisfied look on her face earlier this season. The locks on the wall and the singlestick practice dummy are part of the furniture of the Brownstone. Kudos for the writers taking a throwaway skill Doyle gave Holmes and making it integral to Miller's Sherlock. Doyle famously gave Holmes baritsu (or bartitsu or ju-jitsu) skills to throw Moriarty off the Reichenbach and never had him use them again. It would be more profitable to complain about the single use of the violin. Of course, I know it's notorious difficult to successfully fake playing it, but still, I don't think we've ever seen it again. I understand your point is to see more Canonical references, but "Elementary" had never been about an Easter Egg hunt, but an exploration of the character of Holmes through the "weening of his drug mania" lens. As for "Mr. Stapleton", you didn't meet him because he didn't exist; he was the supposed go-between the kidnapped Irene and Moriarty. As you know, Stapleton didn't exist in HOUN either, that was an alias adopted by Rodger Baskerville--just as "Mr. Stapleton" was an alias for a fictitious person. And may I also point out MP Moran was the number one rat who disappeared at the Sumatra Road Station--talk about a torturous and useless Canonical reference.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't have trouble with the locks on the wall or the single stick and are habits that make the show more Holmes like.
      There are just not enough, or maybe not done in a way that would represent a Holmes like character.
      I also like your argument about Elementary not being an Easter Egg Hunt. Elementary is building a very deep character and should be given credit for that.
      I missed the Sumatra Road Station one! Thanks.

      Delete