Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Elementary - A Controlled Descent - Review


    Enable Dark Mode!

  • What's HOT
  • Premiere Calendar
  • Ratings News
  • Movies
  • YouTube Channel
  • Submit Scoop
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • Privacy Policy
Support SpoilerTV
SpoilerTV.com is now available ad-free to for all premium subscribers. Thank you for considering becoming a SpoilerTV premium member!

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

Elementary - A Controlled Descent - Review

17 May 2015

Share on Reddit

"A Controlled Descent," the season three finale of Elementary, was written by series creator Robert Doherty and is clearly intended to be an important "myth" episode. The case of the week is not really a case proper so much as an excuse to put Holmes (Jonny Lee Miller) through the wringer to test his sobriety. For once--and this is a nice change form the usual formula--there isn't even a murder to solve (though there is a death). Nevertheless, the episode is disappointing. Both the plot and the denouement are implausible. While some interesting possibilities for next season open up, as a conclusion for this season, the episode is lacking.

The episode focuses on how Holmes's contrasting relationships with his ex-sponsor Alfredo Llamosa
(Ato Essandoh, who actually has very little to do in the episode) and Oscar Rankin (Michael Weston) reflect the knife-edge balance of his sobriety. Now that hs is no longer Holmes's sponsor, Alfredo has become one of Holmes's few friends. The two share an amusing moment at the beginning of the episode watching a film of the Abbott and Costello "Who's on First" routine, the most perfect joke ever crafted, according to Holmes. However, Alfredo disappears under mysterious circumstances, which constitutes the first challenge to Holmes's sobriety in the episode. As he knows, relapse is always possible--having lost his friend Alastair to such a relapse earlier in the season--so he fears not only foul play but also backsliding.

This point is crystallized by the reappearance of Oscar, Holmes's former "friend" from his heroin days, who last (and first, for that matter) appeared in episode 3.16 ""For all you Know," another epsiode exploring Holmes's addiction (an episode also co-written by Doherty) and the detrimental effect he had on others and others had on him when he was an addict. Alfredo is a friend and an aid to Holmes in beating his addiction; Oscar may have seemed like a friend, but he never was. Instead, he was a threat, and he becomes one far more overtly in "A Controlled Descent." Even before the real plot is revealed--Oscar has kidnapped Alfredo to force Holmes to help find Oscar's missing sister Olivia--one can hardly miss the contrast between Alfredo and the dirty, twitchy, sore-covered Oscar. Oscar represents the descent into which Holmes had plunged in the past, while Alfredo represents his climb out--their opening scene is even set on the roof of Holmes's brownstone.

Sadly, Oscar's plot doesn't make much sense. Clearly resentful of Holmes, he has kidnapped Alfredo
to force Holmes to help find this missing sister. How he knows about Alfredo is unclear, how somebody as clearly messed-up as he is could manage to plan and pull off a kidnapping is unclear, and even how he could manage to overpower and move a guy who weighs fifty pounds more than he does (as we are told in the episode)--even with a gun--is thinly explained. It becomes clear as the episode proceeds that Oscar really does not need Holmes to conduct this search, as tracking Olivia's movements proves remarkably simple. The point, of course--and in fact my wife said, about a third of the way through the episode, "this is just a big ruse to try ot get Holmes using again"--is not the "case," such as it is, but rather Oscar's vengeful desire to drag Holmes back down to his level, as represented rather heavy-handedly by the tawdry shooting gallery to which he takes Holmes, and by the dark tunnel to which he finally leads his former friend.

This false friend contrasts with Holmes's true friends, who are trying to help from a distance. While Holmes, basically himself a hostage of Oscar's, looks for Olivia, Watson (Lucy Liu), Bell (Jon Michael Hill) and Gregson (Aidan Quinn) dig into Oscar's life to try to find Alfredo. Gregson explicitly calls himself and Bell Holmes's (and Watson's) friends, to rather drill home the point about the contrasting relationships. Holmes figures out that he's being played when he finds Olivia, dead of an overdose, but also realizes that Oscar had already found her himself before leading Holmes through the motions. At this point Oscar admits his true goal and tells Holmes that unless Holmes uses, Alfredo will die. As Holmes is faced with this dilemma, his phone rings, and he gets the news that Alfredo has been found and is safe.

Problem solved, right? Holmes does not have to make the difficult decision whether to use or to leave
his friend to die, right? Well, sadly, no. Holmes pummels Oscar and then drops his phone--the lifeline to his friends, as it often is seen to be in the series--picks up the heroin kit, and trudges into the underpass where Olivia's body lies. The symbolism is not exactly subtle. We are left to infer that he uses. In other words, Oscar wins, even though he loses, by making Holmes see himself  as an addict again, as a hopeless case. At the end of the episode, Holmes is back on the roof--ironically in an elevated position again, but sitting alone and looking more than a little out of it. We learn from Watson that Holmes's father has found out what has happened and is taking a flight to New York. So, maybe we will get to meet Holmes senior next season. And that's the episode.

I found Oscar's motivation easy enough to believe, but not his ability to pull off his plan. The episode also did not, in my opinion, make Holmes's succumbing to heroin in these circumstances plausible (to be fair, we don't actually see him use; I am inferring that he did and expect that we are supposed to so infer). Other episodes, even this season, when he has been tempted, offered more believable tests than this. What we have here seems to be me to be a rather contrived way to trouble Holmes's situation by means of an unlikely adversary, one who ought to be no match for Holmes. The point, I suppose, is that Oscar is really just a stand-in for the temptation to use, but if so, the episode deals with the idea rather ham-handedly.

But what did you think? Did Holmes use? Did he do so plausibly? Does Oscar "work" as a villain? Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

21 comments:

  1. Elvoyce Hooper17 May 2015 at 06:43

    Your analysis is great although I enjoyed the episode except for the "cliff hanger." Did Oscar's plot succeed? Just as I though the animosity between Watson and Holmes was overplayed, played to death, ran into the ground, I think they are beginning to do the same with Holmes' drug use. As to Oscar having the smarts and intelligence to go after Holmes I find conceivable. I have seen it in life. Oscar obviously became a stalker to obtain that much information on Holmes. The unbelievable part is not that he could accomplish that, the unbelievable part is that he could do this without Holmes catching on. After all as many episodes demonstrate, Holmes if paranoid as to his privacy and his observation skills should have detected Oscar's investigation into his life. But there are Oscars in this world. I remember talking to a law enforcement officer about the tremendous amount of jail breaks out of a brand new jail in the first few weeks after it was opened. I asked how come there are so many security leaks in a brand new jail designed by a world class architect. He remarked that they expected that for it always happen. Law enforcement had in fact set up a secondary tier in the local community surrounding the jail and had in fact caught all of them shortly after they escaped. The officer replied that you don't have to be very smart when you have all the time on your hands and spend 12 hours a day working on a plan. The one advantage people who don't work have over people who do work is too much time on their hands.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Timothy Dalton for Papa Holmes! and i HATE that Sherlock relapsed, i thought he was stronger than that!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent review, and not only because it mirrors my own thoughts exactly. This must be one of my least favorite episodes ever, and I found it sadly lacking as a season finale. The story felt contrived and unrealistic. If the writers' goal was to get Holmes using again they could have found a more creative and plausible plot to do it.


    I realize that Holmes' addiction is one of the pillars of this show, but it's also an aspect I'm not particularly fond of. So I have very mixed feelings about the next season; although it should be interesting to finally meet Papa Holmes - if we do.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dominick Grace17 May 2015 at 14:37

    I think you've put your finger on what my unarticulated (because it wasn't clear to me until you said it) issue was: the inconceivability of Oscar being able to put one past Holmes. I touched on it, but yes, you are right, if you have malice and all the time in the world, you can come up with a lot, but all the time and malice in the world don't give you the skills not to be seen through by Sherlock Frickin' Holmes! Again, thanks for the insightful comment.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dominick Grace17 May 2015 at 14:37

    THAT would be cool casting!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Elvoyce Hooper17 May 2015 at 19:14

    Thank you but I still consider you the master. You have taught me what to look for when reviewing Holmes and other episodes. I just drew on my life experiences in law enforcement in my reviews and when I read your review I found it enjoyable and instructive and as usual I agreed with you on important points. I just assumed that you don't have my same experience.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Elvoyce Hooper17 May 2015 at 19:20

    Thought that too. And I think his addiction is being beating to death.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Elvoyce Hooper17 May 2015 at 19:28

    Actually I liked the episode, but I do agree the ending was sadly lacking as a season final. Too me He should have prevailed over Oscar's attempt to get him to relapse out of pure stubbornness no matter the desire. This is inconsistent with the character as developed. But the violence he shows in the final episode further develops the character of this version of Sherlock. A better cliff hanger would be his father's threat to throw him out of the brownstone. That would have tied in neatly with the opening reviews and would have set up a duel cliff hanger of meeting his father and the independence that Holmes and Watson enjoy living rent free in the brownstone, for as Sherlock pointed out in a previous episode that would require them to take on more private cases.

    ReplyDelete
  9. One of my least favorite episodes of the series. Lazy writing and a ho-hum finale. Perhaps Holmes relapsed because he was so ashamed of such a stupid idiot completely manipulating him. I'm sure we're supposed to see this as a progression through the season of Holmes pulling back from the meetings and then being sponsor-less after firing Alfredo. However, I thought it MUCH more plausible that he would have relapsed last year - his motivation was so much greater. I would have liked to see Holmes check himself into re-hab or something rather than using over something so basically trivial and pointless. Good review!

    ReplyDelete
  10. I gotta agree that it seemed too easy for Sherlock to fall off the wagon. As mentioned, he was tested many times before (in London before he started working with Kitty was a major test) but he managed to remain strong. So I'm still unclear why and how Oscar's so called plan worked. What did I miss?


    It was pretty obvious that the show was going to tackle this plotline (Sherlock relapsing) but I wished they put some thought into it, dragged it out over a few eps instead of cramming it into the last 5mins. I think Oscar's 'plan' would have been more believable to work if over the course of 2/3 eps, we are shown Sherlock being tested and going through a tough time - and Sherlock's encounter with Oscar was indeed the push that drove him over.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dominick Grace19 May 2015 at 04:08

    Thanks for the kind words! if there were a blush icon, I'd add it. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dominick Grace19 May 2015 at 04:10

    Thanks. I found myself wondering whether we were supposed to believe that Holmes just bought Oscar's line about it being inevitable, or whether he was feeling guilty about how he'd treated Oscar and therefore saw himself as responsible (somehow), but if so, it did not come through for me.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dominick Grace19 May 2015 at 04:11

    Yes--especially since last week's episode was basically filler.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Patricia Duffer25 May 2015 at 22:29

    What if he didn't use but has been sitting on the rooftop since assaulting and likely killing Oscar on the tracks or did everyone think no one would care about that part? Maybe Daddy doesn't want to support a killer or wants to help sweep it under the rug, who knows but sounds just as plausable as such a cliche relapse.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dominick Grace26 May 2015 at 04:16

    I agree that we can't be sure whether he really did use or not, though I do think that is the reading we're expected to favour. (FWIW,I hope hedidn't, and that his apaprently catatonic/stoned state on the roof has another explanation.) As for his pummelling of Oscar, let's not forget that he was allowed to get away with torturing . . . whatever his name was, played by Vinnie Jones, which was far worse than the beating he laid on Oscar, and Kitty was pretty much allowed to walk away after her own violent assault on a felon--by Holmes, anyway. Typically of many an American crime show, Elementary does not seem too concerned about the morality of the violence of its heroes.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Elvoyce Hooper26 May 2015 at 17:44

    It could be that America love the anti-hero. But it can be pushed so far in the American media that the anti-hero becomes the villain. When the entertainment industry go faddish it always go to far. I give you Dexter, Hannabel, Bates Motel, etc., and even though I have watched a episode or so and the quality is good, I can get depressed from reading a newspaper.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Elvoyce Hooper26 May 2015 at 17:48

    Lazy and faddish writing. I was disappointed by the ending. Many shows seem to fail to understand that when the build a character over several years and create a fan base they had best develop those character traits and avoid 180s because of tragedies that the character has handled in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dominick Grace26 May 2015 at 18:01

    America certainly does love the anti-hero, or at any rate the "hero" capable of doing whatever needs to be done, no matter how extreme, to get the job done--not that there's anything wrong with that, but the outsider/outlaw/vigilante "hero" is a very popular American figure.

    ReplyDelete
  19. So much THIS! My biggest issue with Supernatural for some time now...

    ReplyDelete
  20. Patricia Duffer28 May 2015 at 15:04

    Agreed. FWIW though, I do hope they made his moral character stronger than that.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dominick Grace29 May 2015 at 03:42

    Me too!

    ReplyDelete

NOTE: Name-calling, personal attacks, spamming, excessive self-promotion, condescending pomposity, general assiness, racism, sexism, any-other-ism, homophobia, acrophobia, and destructive (versus constructive) criticism will get you BANNED from the party.