Sherlock ends with a final misogynistic solution

 

1519196473-funny-sherlock-holmes-showIt should come to no surprise to my readers that I thoroughly enjoy the stories of Sherlock Holmes in all their iterations. Whether the stories are from Doyle himself or from the minds of modern writers who use the famous sleuth as if he were their own. I loved the playfulness of the Downey/Law movies and the older true to form BBC adaptations. But out of all of them, none has given more pleasure than Steven Moffatt’s take in the Cumberbatch/Freeman Sherlock series. That was until this past weekend, when the four-season run finally came it stunning conclusion. I haven’t been this disappointed and disillusioned in quite some time.

For those of you who have yet to watch season four, I warn you to stop reading now. Yes, there will be spoilers and no, I don’t want to hear how I’ve ruined the show for you. So seriously, Stop. Right. Now.

tumblr_lxwm8k4bfu1qjsz00

For those of you still with me I am going to assume most of you have watched the show so I won’t give a blow-by-blow review. For the others, I am going to assume you are just curious to know want I am going to rant about now. Hopefully I won’t confuse you with my lack of a detailed recap.

sherlock-carousel-10262013

To say this last season (series for my UK friends) has been underwhelming is an understatement. These last three shows have focused on the breakdown of the Holmes/Watson relationship and the one “final solution” that brings them back together. The idea of a break-up between these two best friends would make for good drama had it been done with care; as it was, the last three shows were cobbled together slapdashedly, with major plot holes looming so large that it’s no wonder Watson ended up in a deep well. His watery prison was an ideal metaphor for the series.

In the last episode titled “The final solution” we are asked to suspend disbelief at every turn as Sherlock faces the series’ most villainous foe yet. Among the most absurd plot devices we are asked to believe are:

Mycroft’s super-hero like ability to wipe out Sherlock’s most horrific memories and replace them with memories of a beloved pet dog named “Red beard”. Really? Mycroft has the means to do this? As the head of the government’s spy agency why doesn’t he use this power to wipe out memories of the world’s global terrorist and replace them with memories of a happy Republic? If that’s too much to ask, why not wipe out the mind of the super villain he has locked up in a Arkham like asylum, thus removing the threat all together?

That Sherlock, upon meeting this locked up super villain loses his power of deduction and doesn’t notice the obvious around him. Oh come on! He doesn’t realize the villain is not behind glass or that her voice is being “altered” by a hidden microphone.

That even though Sherlock and Watson show up to the asylum unannounced, the super villain has her traps ready and waiting for them, including a dog bowl with the name “Red beard” on it. This can only mean that Mycroft has talked to her about Sherlock. Again why not wipe her mind too since he has access to her? I don’t think I am going to get over that one.

That we see Watson chained in a well. In fact the writers make it clear that John cannot escape the rising water because of the chain on his leg, yet he is rescued when a rope is thrown down to him. Unless that rope included an underwater diver with a bolt cutter there was no way out for John to excape, but there he is safe and sound. Speaking of John, two episodes earlier his wife died saving Sherlock. Mycroft could have replaced those memories with memories of Mary dying trying to save a puppy from a burning building, thus relieving John of his more horrific memories and saving the duos friendship. At this point I think we can all agree that Mycroft is an asshole. But the most egregious mistake Moffatt and the writers make is with the villain. It’s misogynistic ,and utterly, utterly pointless.

It turns out the most wicked character Sherlock has ever faced is his younger sister Eurus, named for the God of the East wind. We not only learn that Sherlock has a sister he cannot remember, but that Mycroft has teased his younger brother about an “east wind” all his life. See, I told you Mycroft is an asshole. This younger sister is not only smarter than the two brothers (Mycroft says her brilliance is incandescent and that a mind like hers has not been seen since Newton) but that she is a vicious psychopath, lacking all forms of emotion both mentally and physically (Pain? Which one is that? She asks Mycroft). As an adult she subscribes to the philosophy that good vs. bad behaviors are merely societal constraints. She is fully aware of the contradictions of such constraints; it’s deemed bad to murder someone but killing in war is expected. She is also fully aware of the danger she poses as a woman. She answers her own question of “why am I here?”, with the chilling words, “Because I am smart”.

This smart yet very dangerous woman spends the last hour of the episode torturing Sherlock by making him responsible for the death of other people by forcing him to play “games” that can only be solved by murder. She does all of this because though she lacks every other emotion, jealousy is her driving motivation. Jealousy is a trope we see used in literature over and over again as the expression of out of control women. To see it here is madding.

Eurus we learn had no friends and was jealous of Sherlock and his small boyhood companion. So much so, that she drowns this companion in a deep well and sets the Holmes estate on fire, hoping to kill Sherlock. It is at this point that she is locked up for life. There is no attempt to rehabilitate or even medicate this smart yet dangerous woman; Mycroft forbids it. In this he renders her help-less. Wiping out Sherlock’s memory of her effectively kills her. He completes this “murder” by telling his parents she has died in a fire. If this isn’t misogynistic I don’t know what is, yet it only gets worse from here.

In the most mind-bending side plot of the series, Sherlock is a willing victim in his sister’s games in order to save a little girl who he thinks is trapped on a doomed airplane. It turns out, the little girl who really needs saving is his sister, because despite all of her wickedness and psychosis, what she really needs is love from her older sibling. Yes, in the end, Sherlock is able to save her by a goddamn hug.

The episode ends with the family being reunited and all seems well. Yet the viewers are left with a damning question left unanswered. Why is Sherlock’s sister now unable to speak? Though the reasons for her incarceration appear to be gone she is left in the asylum, unable to speak, thus unable to defend herself against those who wish to keep the smart one locked up.

Not only was this a terrible way to end what started out as a brilliant show, it did so in the most misogynistic way possible. I can only surmise that Mark Gatiss, the man who plays Mycroft, and one of the lead producers, is also an asshole. Too bad he can’t wipe out the viewer’s memories of this last episode and replace it with a better one.

 

The Specter of Shakespeare’s Ghosts

I am thy father’s spirit,
Doom’d for a certain term to walk the night,
And for the day confin’d to fast in fires,
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purg’d away

John Gilbert Hamlet in the presence of his father
John Gilbert Hamlet in the presence of his father

Do you believe in ghosts? A recent Pew Research Center poll claims that one in five Americans believe in ghosts. 29% of those polled said they’ve seen a ghost. Over in the UK, a YouGov poll found that 1 in 3 people believe in ghosts. Yet, not all who believe in ghosts agree on what a ghost is. Some feel that ghosts are trapped souls due to a traumatic or untimely death. It is believed these trapped souls have unfinished earthly business and cannot break free of their earthly bonds until they complete their work. This is why these ghosts attempt to contact the living; they want our help. Others believe ghosts are memory charged energy. These ghosts don’t contact us. Instead, they wander old houses and walkways, paying us no attention at all. As if they are nothing more than a moment in time, doomed to play out over and over again.

The belief in ghosts and the argument over their nature is not a modern invention. Some of man’s earliest ideas about life after death involve the supernatural. Depending on one’s religious beliefs, ghosts can be a source of comfort or utter terror. The belief in ghosts is ingrained in our collective psyche, so much so that we find them in ancient writing and oral narratives. Whether we believe in them or not, ghosts it seems, have always been a part of the human condition.

One of the most widespread ideas about the nature of ghosts is the idea that ghosts appear to the living in order to exact justice. These ghosts have come to be known as “Vengeful Ghosts”. We find these ghosts in almost every culture. In ancient Greece they were known as the Keres, in China, the Mogwai. The generic term for them in Japan is the Onryo, though they have broken down into sub-ghosts, depending on the type of revenge they are seeking. Vengeful ghosts can be found in almost every ancient and modern culture, though for our purposes, we will be looking at them as part of the history of western plays.

The first recorded play dealing with vengeful ghosts comes from the Roman playwright Seneca. His tragedy Agamemnon begins with the Ghost of Thyestes provoking his son, Aegisthus, to revenge the wrongs inflicted on him by his brother Atreus and to foretell of coming events

But at length, though late and coming after death, the promise of dim prophecy is fulfilled to me, worn with my woes; that king of kings, that leader of leaders, Agamemnon, following whose banner a thousand ships once covered the Trojan waters with their sails, now that, after ten courses of Phoebus, Ilium is o’erthrown, now is he near at hand – to give his throat into his wife’s power. Now, now shall this house swim in blood other than mine; swords, axes, spears, a king’s head cleft with the axe’s heavy stroke, I see; now crimes are near, now treachery, slaughter, gore – feasts are being spread. The author of thy birth has come, Aegisthus. Why dost hang thy head in shame? Why doth thy trembling hand, doubtful of purpose, fall? Why doest take counsel with thyself, why turn the question o’er and o’er whether this deed become thee? Think on thy mother; it becomes thee well”.

Seneca’s influence is very clear in Thomas Kyd’s The Spanish Tragedy, first staged around 1590. This features the Ghost of Andrea, a Spanish nobleman, who opens the play with a rather long soliloquy, at the end of which he is promised by the personified spirit of Revenge that he will witness the killing of Don Balthazar, ‘the author of thy death’. Though the influence is clear, there is a noted difference. In Kyd’s play the living does not interact with the dead. The supernatural is shown as emotions personified. Leaving us to wonder if  Kyd is uncomfortable with the idea of ghosts as souls.

As revenge plays rose in popularity a recurring trope had the ghost appearing somewhere in a corner moaning or wailing “revenge, revenge!” Of course this overused trope attracted some critics. The anonymously written play, A Warning for Fair Women, (late1590s), begins with a debate between personified Comedy and Tragedy in which the former mocks the latter for often featuring “a filthy whining ghost”.

Kyd’s Spanish Tragedy is widely regarded as having much influenced Shakespeare’s Hamlet, though the often mentioned but lost Kyd play we call Ur-Hamlet, seems to be the one that Shakespeare really drew from with one notable exception; Shakespeare’s ghost not only talks to the living, he gives direction to his son just as Seneca’s ghost instructed his. Shakespeare borrowed Kyd’s plot, yet it is Seneca’s ghost that we see in Shakespeare’s play.

Hamlet’s ghost appears in act 1. Though he is mute to those that see him first, it is clear he has something to say. The night watchmen alert Horatio, thinking the ghost will talk to a educated man. “Thou art a scholar; speak to it, Horatio”. When this doesn’t work, Horatio decides to tell Hamlet. As we all know, the ghost finally speaks.

I am thy father’s spirit,
Doomed for a certain term to walk the night
And for the day confined to fast in fires
Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature
Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid
To tell the secrets of my prison house,
I could a tale unfold whose lightest word
Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood,
Make thy two eyes, like stars, start from their
spheres,
Thy knotted and combinèd locks to part,
And each particular hair to stand on end,
Like quills upon the fretful porpentine.
But this eternal blazon must not be
To ears of flesh and blood.

Unlike Thyestes, Hamlet the elder does not spend time foretelling of future events, which is too bad as he could have saved Hamlet’s life, but instead, chooses to talk of his own fate and tell the story of his murder at the hands of his  brother. He instructs his son to revenge his “murder most foul”. He ends his story by telling Hamlet to “Remember me”, thus demanding that his memory be best kept alive by killing his murderer.

Painting of Edmund Kean as Hamlet
Painting of Edmund Kean as Hamlet

It is possible that had this been the only point in the play that we see and hear the ghost, his appearance may not be so haunting (yes pun intended) but as the play progresses, and Hamlet seems to be losing his way, the ghost appears again; this time to remind Hamlet of his duty to his memory and to stop Hamlet from verbally abusing his mother; to see her spiritual innocence as it battles with her earthly passions.

“Do not forget: this visitation
Is but to whet thy almost blunted purpose.
But, look, amazement on thy mother sits:
O, step between her and her fighting soul:
Conceit in weakest bodies strongest works:
Speak to her, Hamlet”.

In Hamlet, Shakespeare has given us a ghost that while vengeful, is not blinded by his rage. He wants only to punish his murder; his wife’s weakness is tolerated because she is only hurting herself. Only the queen can save her own soul, though the King asks that she be comforted and understood. The ghost is one of the few characters in the play that portrays compassion and kindness.

Because of this, we see that Shakespeare re-imaged ghosts as fully fleshed out characters. Shakespeare’s ghosts, though not always chatty, move away from the shadows and enter the drama center stage. As noted in my previous post, A quick guide to Shakespeare’s Ghosts, Shakespeare’s use of ghosts advances how they are used in western drama. But Hamlet is not the only time we see Shakespeare’s ghosts influence human drama.

In Macbeth, the ghost of Banquo serves to illustrate Macbeth’s unraveling. Banquo’s mute ghost sitting in Macbeth’s chair causes a mental breakdown and quietly predicts the end of Macbeth’s reign of terror.

The same could almost be said for the Ghost of Julius Caesar when he visits Brutus. Though this time the ghost does speak and promises Brutus he will see him in battle. This interaction between the two could be seen as the result of Brutus’ mind playing tricks on him as his guilt over Caesar’s death begins to take its toll. But for our argument, let us assume it is a ghost.

Shakespeare’s masterful use of ghostly characters influence how we view literary ghost today. A good example is Dickens’ chain rattling Marley. He is a result of Hamlet’s ghost. Here we have a ghost who also talks of his ‘after-life” and attempts to influence the living.

It is required of every man, that the spirit within him should walk abroad among his fellowmen, and travel far and wide; and if that spirit goes not forth in life, it is condemned to do so after death.  It is doomed to wander through the world, oh, woe is me! And witness what it cannot share, but might have shared on earth, and turned to happiness!”

This ghost not only warns Scrooge that he will share this fate and wear similar chains if he does not change his way, he summons three more ghosts to visit his partner in order to effect the change he seeks. And again we see a ghost display more compassion than the does the main character.

Shakespeare gave a voice to ghosts. His ghosts were not one dimensional characters; often they were supernatural characters that exhibited human qualities. And with out this, we wouldn’t have Gothic and modern horror we have today. Without Shakespeare, ghosts may be nothing more than filthy whiny sectors. I will leave that up to you to decide if this is a good or bad thing.

Next up, we will look at what 16th century religious turmoil influenced how Shakespeare used ghosts.

Works Cited

Anonymous A Warning for Fair Women Kessinger Publishing Print edition
Charles Dickens. A Christmas Carol Penguin Classic. Print edition
Theol Text Library SenecaAgamemnon. Web Site
William Shakespeare Hamlet Folger print edition

Amazing Waste

Repurposing Food and Reducing Waste

measurestillformeasure

Shakespeare, Classics, Theatre, Thoughts

Nerd Cactus

Quirky Intellect for the Discerning Nerd

Sillyverse

Stories of magic and mystery

Commonplace Fun Facts

Mind-Blowing Facts You Didn’t Know

Fictionophile

Fiction reviews, Bookblogger, Fiction book reviews, books, crime fiction, author interviews, mystery series, cover, love, bookish thoughts...

Patrick W. Marsh

monsters, monsters, everywhere

Shakespeare for Kids Books

Opening the door for kids to love Shakespeare and the classics

desperatelyseekingcymbeline

The 10-year Shakespeare New Year Resolution

Katzenworld

Welcome to the world of cats!

booksandopinions.com

The Book Reviews You Can Trust!

The Book Review Directory

For Readers and Writers

thelitcritguy

screams from the void

Author Adrienne Morris

Step Into the Past—Lose Yourself in the Story.

crafty theatre

ideas inspired by crafty characters

Critical Dispatches

Reports from my somewhat unusual life

The Nerd Nebula

The Nucleus of the Universe for all Nerd Hacks!