Sherlock, Series 4

I must say that I was (and am) completely in love with the first two series of Sherlock. I was enchanted by how well the transition in time was handled, how relationships were reconfigured but remained the same, how forward-looking (rather than nostalgically fixated on the past) it was, just how smart it was, how it struck a fine balance between pure excitement and little in-jokes for those who read the books. I loved both Benedict Cumberbatch's and Martin Freeman's performances, which were perfectly pitched, never strained or overdone. But the third series (after the explosion in popularity of the show and a long hiatus) was really dreadful, I felt really betrayed by how awful the writing was and how much Moffat and Gatiss were pandering to the fans. I thought that one of the biggest mistakes was using lines such as 'I'm not a psychopath, I'm a high-functioning sociopath' which fans had picked up on and sort of 'adopted' again and again, making them taglines for the whole show. However, I actually really liked last year's Christmas special (even though it was completely pointless in terms of plot), so I was cautiously allowing myself to be hopeful about this series.

[SPOILERS FOR SEASON 4 FROM HERE]

I was so incredibly disappointed by how far from the original feel of the show this has strayed. It used to feel so fresh, unusual, exciting. When Sherlock observes in 'A Study in Pink' that John must have seen a lot of death, horror and danger and finishes with 'want to see more?' and John answers 'oh god, yes' and they rush off together, that was just such a perfect moment, nothing can top that for me. Now, everything feels old, disgusting, over-used. I could literally predict the next frame 90% of the time in this series. I'm not even going to talk about the truly terrible writing and pathetic characterization. There has already been a lot of discussion of that, as well as the atrocious and sloppy plot development and the cheap trick of memory suppression.

What I want to point out about this series (especially the final episode) is the use of the Gothic. As I was watching it, I couldn't stop thinking about the sheer number of conventional Gothic tropes used; twisted family situations, ancestral mansions, an insane woman burning a building, pushing someone down a well, and more recent tropes used by writers such as Ian McEwan and Iain Banks; isolating a set of characters is an almost dystopian setting, mind/memory manipulation. And I realised that the last episode can be very easily read along the lines of the influential early feminist critique of 'the madwoman in the attic'. This critique comes from a book of the same title from 1979, the basic idea of which is that all female characters in Victorian (especially Gothic) fiction are either the 'demon' or the 'angel' and the 'demon' embodies in the most extreme form everything that the society fears. This means that she has to be contained (imprisoned or killed) and, according to later feminist critics such as Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick, the process of 'containing' the threat of the 'demonic' woman is what will cement the homosocial bonds of the men in the story. The men usually act with the aid of the 'angel', the complicit woman. The label of the 'madwoman in the attic' refers to Bertha in Jane Eyre, literally the madwoman locked up by her husband in the attic, and there are explicit similarities between Euros Holmes and Bertha. They are both kept a secret (from Jane in Jane Eyre and from Sherlock in this case), they both burn down their houses in a fit of rage, they are both mentally unstable, and are both locked away in (supposedly) completely isolated spaces by male authority figures (Mr. Rochester in Jane Eyre and Mycroft in Sherlock). Seen in this way, the show is extremely problematic because everyone has now agreed that the 'madwoman in the attic' is a dated and reductionist critique that does not take in many important points. The fact that this show ticks all the boxes for this critique is very alarming, because it shows just how narrow-minded and patriarchal it is and how much women are vilified in our culture.

According to early feminist critiques, the 'demon' figure embodies the extreme of what the culture in question fears in women. In Victorian culture, it was usually female agency (expressed through violence), sexuality (expressed through usually unspecified sexually transgressive behaviour), and attractiveness (there characters tend to be very beautiful). In this case, Euros (a kind of updated Lady Audley who uses her mind rather than her beauty to control others) embodies the extreme of female agency (again expressed through violence), sexuality (again, sexual transgression) and intelligence (expressed through an 'abnormal' excess of intelligence). So basically, what I'm saying is that if read according to this sort of critique, Euros embodies the female agency, sexuality and intelligence that our culture still fears and feels compelled to restrain. I am usually completely against such reductionist and one-sided readings, but to me, this episode corresponded so obviously to every aspect of this critique. Like any 'demon' figure, the ultimate purpose of Euros is the strengthen the homosocial bonds between male characters (Sherlock, John and Mycroft). The scene where Euros tries to force Sherlock to choose between killing John and Mycroft is a classic example of this. Though the male characters have conflicts between them, they are put aside so that they can make a united front against the female threat. Sherlock chooses to shoot himself rather than kill either his friend or his brother, which forces Euros to back down in order to prevent him. Ultimately, Euros is 'contained', significantly with the aid of complicit women (Mary and Molly). The main problem with this is that it means that our culture still insists on seeing women along the demon/angel binary. Either women are empowered and intelligent (and consequently dangerous psychopaths and murderers) or they are submissive and give themselves in service to men. The show used to be the complete opposite of that, with characters such as Irene Adler, but it has becomes a mess not only in terms of the writing, direction and plot, but also in terms of its ideological agenda. I can only join those praying to the deities in charge of the BBC that another series will never be made.

Also, what is it with the Americanisms?? Since when does Sherlock use the word 'awesome'? Oh, yes, and apparently you can tell whether or nor someone is a virgin by how they play the violin. (???)