Lee Miller]) but also opening up a very little bit about her past. Watson's compassion is key to her success, as her willingness to give a mentally ill man the benefit of the doubt and try to find his missing homeless friend--when the police write him off as crazy and his missing friend as imaginary--leads to the discovery of a particularly skeevy plot to kidnap homeless people and claim their disability cheques. We see Watson engage both in investigative work, to track down the identity af the missing man, and deductive work, as she puts together the pieces. She is coming into her own, as this episode signals. Amusingly, even though she has apparently continued not to read Holmes's monographs on cigarette ash (a nice carryover from the original Conan Doyle stories), she's able to apply that expertise when his keen olfactory senses recognize a distinctive tobacco scent on her, thereby giving her the key datum to put the story together. True, Holmes gives her a key piece of information, but putting it together is all Watson.

We learn as well that Watson has her own skeletons in the closet (echoes of last week's episode), when she tells Holmes about her father. Like Holmes, she has family trauma in her past, in this instance a schizophrenic father who is himself homeless now. This situation adds resonance to Watson's case this week, though I suppose one might quibble that both our leads don't really need troubled familial relationships. However, the differences in those troubles help underscore the differences in how Holmes and Watson deal with reality, Watson by opting for compassion and emotional engagement, Holmes for reason and emotional detachment. These differences make them complementary figures and help explin why they work so well together. I tmight also help explain why Watson seems to have taken relatively easily to the unconventional world she now inhabits.
Holmes's emotional detachment manifests itself this time in the most extensive version of his use of casual sex, this time with a suspect in his case, which involves ballerina murder, a story that might have been called "The Case of the Bisected Ballerina" (more gruesome images of this scene than the one I have used here can be found online, but this gives you an idea of how this episode pushes a bit further into the gory than is usual for Elementary). The murder is bizarre and spectacular, the plot satisfyingly twisty, with Holmes having


though Iris may have fooled him.
The answer is actually much more interesting than murder out of professional or sexual jealousy, the initial motives considered. Instead, we have a far more intriguing--and sociopathic--situation, in which Iris's lawyer (guest star and familiar face Scott Cohen) has calculatedly murdered another ballerina merely to generate some column inches for his client. I confess I found this episode more interesting than many of the other recent ones, not only for its epsecially spectacular murder (bisected ballerina dropped form the grid onot a stage? yikes!) but also for its avoidance of prosaic motivations. Holmes stories don't require bizarre crimes and motives, but they sure don't hurt.
How about you? What did you like and dislike about the episode? Let me know in the comments below!
Good review! Watson's subplot felt a bit out of the blue, maybe because they're focusing on Sherlock this season and Joan has less material and we didn't have previous foreshadowing, but Lucy Liu was able to pull it off. She is good with these quiet and discreet scenes. The plot was very respectful to the mentally ill as well and even though Joan solved the case, she wasn't "a genius". She is still learning and Sherlock still helps her when she needs it, even unconsciously. It's a sign that their partnership is working! I enjoyed it.
ReplyDeleteThe ballerina case was interesting too.
I'm not a big fan of womanizing!Sherlock because I think the show doesn't need sex as plot generator but surprisingly, here it worked!
I enjoy seeing the contrasts between Holmes and Watson and how the show explores them. Holmes sleeps around and is extremely unprofessional in this particular case, while calling Watson "a prude" constantly. Watson, on the other side, is not "a prude" (she had a one night stand with Mycroft, after all), but she clearly has limits and boundaries about sex, and judges Sherlock's lack of sense for sleeping with a suspect and, at certain point, endangering the investigation.
I think this is how the show works the best. Even with different storylines, Watson and Sherlock managed to have independece within their plots and had good moments together.
Great review! I really liked getting to see Watson take the lead in a case. I really enjoy how you tease out the differences in their approach to their surprisingly similar backgrounds - Watson by increased compassion and Holmes by detachment. It does make them even more suitably complimentary.
ReplyDeleteThank yuo! I'm glad it seemed to work, as I confess I did feel a bit like I was flailing about trying to make links this week.
ReplyDeleteThanks! And agreed. Holmes as womanizer is one aspect of the show that does clang a bit with me, as it runs counter to the essence of the character as I've always understood him, in ways that transplantation to America or conversion of Watson to a woman don't. It does make a kind of sense if you take as a beginning point that Holmes isn't asexual, I suppose.
ReplyDeleteTerrific review! I liked your reflection on the differences between Holmes and Watson that make them such great partners.
ReplyDeleteThanks! Their relationship is the heart of the show for me, so much so that I find I often barely care about the actual crimes.
ReplyDeleteYep! I feel just the same about it. :)
ReplyDelete