TV Review: ‘Sherlock’ S3 Ends With More Questions than Answers

Note: this article was also published on Neon Tommy (link no longer active).

Sherlock, series 3, episode 3, “His Last Vow”. Written by Steven Moffat (based on the works of Arthur Conan Doyle); directed by Nick Hurran. Copyright 2014: seen February 2, 2014.

The highly anticipated third season of Sherlock has been very divisive within the fan communities. The focus on characterization over mystery and plot, the higher levels of humor than was seen in prior seasons, and the introduction of Mary Morstan (Amanda Abbington) as the fiancée (then wife) of John Watson (Martin Freeman) has led to this season having a vastly different tone in the first two episodes than in the previous two seasons.

The third (and final) episode of the third season will most likely also fit this trend of being divisive. The story is so steeped in plot twists that it is almost impossible to discuss without spoiling it in some way. So, head’s up for those who don’t want to know.

“His Last Vow” – loosely based on the short story “The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton” – opens on our villain, this time around called Charles Augustus Magnussen and played with creepy abandon by Lars Mikkelsen. Basically an expy of Rupert Murdoch with the hint of the fear people have of Google Glass, Magnussen is a newspaper magnate who has dirt on anyone (and everyone) around him, and utilizes said information to get what he wants and to terrorize when it pleases him. We see this idea most effectively in three instances: when he licks the face of Lady Smallwood, when he pees into the fireplace while he ‘negotiates’ with Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) about the return of Smallwood’s letters, and when he flicks John’s face at the end to prove how much power he truly has over the man.

The story then switches over to John Watson, back to having nightmares about the war – but mixed in are dreams (or are they nightmares as well?) of his time with Sherlock. Freeman once again shows a tremendous acting range as we now see the army side of his character as he storms into a crack den to rescue the son of a neighbor, wherein he sees Sherlock – apparently on drugs again, but with the ‘excuse’ that it’s for a case, the main case of going up against Magnussen.

While the first two episodes were very light and comedy filled, this one is pure drama. The episode is action-packed, with high stakes for not only our main characters but for some of our side ones as well.

And speaking of side characters, let’s talk about Mary Morstan Watson. The two previous episodes hinted that we weren’t seeing everything about her, and we find out a big part of what we’ve been missing in this episode. Abbington does a great job with her part, making the character still (somewhat) sympathetic despite what we learn about Mary and what she ends up doing in the episode.

But that leads me to my biggest issue with this episode. Written by co-creator Steven Moffat, this episode has the same issue I’ve seen lobbed about with regards to the latest season of Doctor Who, which he is the showrunner on: there is no sense of consequences as to people’s actions. John seems really out of character for this episode, especially in light of “The Sign of Three”, and it emphasizes how little we actually know about this version of John Watson.

John forgives Mary for her assassin past, but we never see him struggle with it or with the knowledge that Mary shot (and killed, albeit briefly) Sherlock. Yes, he forgave Sherlock rather quickly: but Sherlock faked his death for John (and Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson). Mary’s actions were all to save her own skin. John’s decision process is all off-camera, reminding me that we still don’t really know what either Sherlock or John were doing during the two year hiatus. If the audience is intended to ‘stand in’ for John Watson (he is the companion/sidekick, after all), forgiving her and believing Sherlock’s explanation that Mary didn’t shoot to kill, then why spend so much time in the (admittedly gloriously directed by Nick Hurran) sequence inside Sherlock’s mind palace that shows that the only thing that brought Sherlock back from flatlining was his devotion to John? If John is so addicted to dangerous situations (and people) that he’s having nightmares of the war after only a month of marriage, why was he so calm in both the prequel “Many Happy Returns” as well as the beginning of “The Empty Hearse”? Finally, if we’re supposed to agree that John is attracted to Mary because she is dangerous, then why didn’t we see any of this side of her personality and this plot twist before? I understand Moffat’s desire to leave things to the audience’s imagination, but there’s a difference between allowing the audience to make connections on their own and plot holes big enough to drive a truck through. This is, after all, a mystery show, and we should see, you know, clues about plot twists this big.

I was willing to forgive the mystery-light aspects of the previous two episodes of this season – and some of the plot inconsistencies – because I figured it was part of a long game that would have a payoff in this last episode: kind of how you see Sherlock’s realization of Moriarty’s plans in “The Reichenbach Fall” throughout the other two episodes that season. Instead, we’re given an endgame that has just as many – if not more – plot holes and inconsistencies in a plan that rivals Torchwood: Children of Earth of “show up and see if we can argue our case”: we’re supposed to believe all the proof Magnussen has is just in his head and relies on the threat that he can publish whatever he wants? We should believe that Magnussen – who was so eager to have John and Sherlock searched for weapons when he visits them at Baker Street – didn’t think to do the same when they visit him in his own home? And don’t get me started on the plot twist at the very end that – if it’s actually true – takes anything that’s meaningful to me about “The Reichenbach Fall” and throws it away.

The A.V. Club recently wrote an article about how Elementary has surpassed Sherlock as a series. I don’t watch Elementary (mainly due to lack of time and too much already on my viewing calendar), so I can’t comment on the comparison, but the article brought up a very valid point: due to the inherent set up of only having three episodes a season, as the A.V. Club writes, “Each episode of ‘Sherlock’ must be, by the show’s design, an event.” With only three episodes per season, I am much less forgiving when the episode has drawbacks or fails to be satisfying in some way. If we had the 24 episodes per season of Elementary, or even the typical 12 episodes that most British television series get, I would be more willing to let go inconsistencies in characterization and continuity. But we don’t: we only get four and a half hours worth of material per season, and so therefore each scene will be picked apart as a result.

Moffat and Gatiss have mentioned they already have seasons 4 and 5 plotted out, and the BBC seems willing at this time to have that be a fact rather than a wish. I can only hope that we get some answers in season 4. While surprising your audience is well and good, writers need to remember that sometimes the audience wants the plot to go a certain way and that is not always a bad thing.

“Sherlock” can be seen on PBS (and on PBS’s website).