Monsters of Television

I did not realize how much I’d missed having an episode of Elementary last week (damn you, election!) until this week’s rolled around. I – I kind of love this show, you guys. Who saw that one coming?

We’re only a few episodes in, but certain patterns are already visible in the structure of the show. Every television show – sitcom, drama, what have you – has a standard pattern for the stories it tells and how it tells them. This helps the audiences keep up with what’s going on, and can be either a benefit or a burden. When used correctly, structure can allow for variances that have a strong impact on the storytelling. When used incorrectly, structure can be a drudge, an anchor that holds the show back and bores audiences with a “I know what’s coming” predictability.

Given the core of the premise (brilliant detective solves unsolvable crimes) and its established structure (basic procedural), Elementary could very easily fall into the latter category.

The basic structure of the show so far – aside from the overall procedural framework – includes the following elements:

1. Sherlock explaining – at least once – how he arrived at a seemingly impossible conclusion about someone or something.
2. Sherlock revealing something about himself, small or otherwise, or having a true emotional moment.
3. Sherlock saying/doing something nice for Watson.
4. Sherlock facing off with the actual Big Bad of the episode.
5. Watson mentioning/fearing/working to stave off a relapse.

“Child Predator” had all of these elements.

Sherlock breaking down how he ascertained that Mr. Castillo left the house to meet his mistress is a prime example of number one. Sherlock explaining his brilliance step by step while flashbacks intercut with what he is describing is going to be a hallmark of Elementary. Unsurpassed observational skill and deductive reasoning is what makes Sherlock Sherlock after all, and the show has done a good job of playing on that in a stylized, distinctive way that spends just enough time highlighting what happened without wallowing in it. They will want to keep this as a core element of the show, but they definitely shouldn’t make it any bigger than it is except for on rare occasions – for example, if/when Sherlock comes up against a much more complex case that requires his chain of connections to be a bit longer.

Last episode saw a few huge example of number two from the list. Sherlock’s revelations about his addiction were huge in scope, if small in presentation, and they built to a whopper of a final moment with the violin. This episode was much more subtle in its revelations, but they are ones that have been hinted at in every episode so far. More on that in a bit.

Number three is a huge point for me, as it once again helps shape this Sherlock as a separate entity from his other iterations. I hate to keep bringing it up, but Sherlock is still the best comparison. Whereas I could never trust a single nice word that came out of BC’s Sherlock’s mouth, I believe what JLM’s Sherlock says. What’s more, I believe that he believes it. When he tells Watson that he prefers her company to that of anyone else, it’s not only a nice thing to say, it’s also true.

That doesn’t mean he won’t lie – he lies to Adam to get information from him to save Sara Castillo. But when it’s important, he tells the truth. Like on the counter: he lied to Adam to get information, but when Adam asks whether helping will make up for what he’s done, Sherlock tells him the painful truth.

JLM’s Sherlock also knows where he is different from other people and why – and that it makes him different, not necessarily better. Yes, he believes (rightfully, it must be said) that he’s more observant and generally more intelligent than most people. And he understands that he handles emotions and other people and life in general differently than others do. But he doesn’t think that those differences makes him better. Think of Brennan from Bones: she’s different, too, and understands that she’s different, even if she doesn’t always understand why other people act the way they do and not like her. But she doesn’t think those differences make her a better person. On a scale of JLM Sherlock to BC Sherlock, she’s closer to JLM, and JLM is closer to regular people. It may not seem like much, but the way Sherlock is presented in Elementary allows for a lot of emotional movement with the character, a lot of room for development in whatever direction they choose to take. Where BC’s Sherlock motion was really in one direction – toward appreciating, liking, even having affection for Watson – JLM’s Sherlock can move multidirectionally due to his more overt emotional nature.

The difference between BC’s Sherlock and JLM’s Sherlock is even more pronounced in how they handle being wrong. For BC’s Sherlock, being wrong is simply a frustration, an infuriating sidetrack on the road to being right, to figuring it out. JLM’s Sherlock views things on a larger scale. Yes, he still is driven by the overwhelming desire to solve the mystery, to find the answer – as evidenced by his many all-nighters during “Child Predator” in pursuit of the culprit. But his detecting isn’t just a puzzle; it also has real-world repercussions.

When Sherlock realizes that his actions have led to Adam – the true killer – being released under the protection of a seemingly iron-clad immunity deal, he’s furious not at having been wrong, but at the fact that his being wrong has put people in danger. “I handed a psychopath a Get Out of Jail Free card,” he says. Not, “I lost,” but, “I let a bad guy go free.”

Sherlock isn’t the best because he’s always right. He’s wrong just about as much as anyone else, but since he’s usually 5-10 steps ahead of everybody, he gets to the right answer before them anyway. Or before they’d get there at all, in some cases. What makes Sherlock usually getting it wrong the first time so great is that it gives us his delicious, delicious stand offs with the Big Bads (oh, look – number four!). Hell, in this episode, we get two. And I get the feeling that we may not have seen the last of Adam, based on his and Sherlock’s parting. Could be interesting (and, yes, I am thinking that far down the line). Also interesting: the possibility of Sherlock actually losing to the Big Bad. Stay tuned!

Something else that could be interesting down the line is number five. Every episode so far has kept Sherlock’s stint in rehab – and hence Watson’s reason for being – alive by having Watson refer to it, Sherlock’s addiction, or his current state (in relation to his addiction). She spends all of “Child Predator” concerned that going on no food and sleep will drive Sherlock into a relapse.

I do not think that we will see a relapse any time soon – definitely not in the first season. But I do think that the possibility of a relapse is something that the show can use for dramatic emphasis later on. It’s the kind of thing that would happen at the end of part one of a mid-season finale, or at the end of a season finale – the big build up through the season (maybe from a season-arc Big Bad) to Sherlock’s breaking point. Not only would the relapse be huge for Sherlock’s character, it would also be extremely huge for Sherlock and Watson’s relationship.

Am I excited for what’s to come? Oh, yes. Yes, I am.

Extras:

• Sherlock is shirtless. A lot. Anyone else noticed that?
• “Is he right?” “Usually.” *splorfle*
• “No sleep, no food–” “Makes Sherlock a dull boy.” <3
• I literally “awww!”ed during this episode.
• “I’d trade my dad for a Tic-Tac.” Oooo! Will we see Mycroft? Quick – FANTASY CASTING, GO.
• Next week: Are we jumping straight to the “hero gets kidnapped” trope? Kind of early, isn’t it? I’m going to assume this is a random kidnapping and not a premeditated action, considering it’s only episode four.
• “You can never get their blood off your hands. But that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try.” Ooo, there’s a whole other post in that. But I won’t subject y’all to it.