The Role of Alterity for the Construction of Identity in BBC’s Sherlock

Masterarbeit im Ein-Fach-Masterstudiengang, Fach “English and American Literatures, Cultures, and Media” der Philosophischen Fakultät der Christian-Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel

vorgelegt von Wiebke Wilhelmine Pauketat

Erstgutachter: Prof. Christian Huck Zweitgutchterin: Prof. Annegreth Horatschek

Kiel im Dezember 2013

2

Table of Content

1 Introduction ...... 3 2 Theory ...... 7 2.1 The importance of alterity for identity construction ...... 7 2.2 Concept reality/fiction, film techniques ...... 10 3 Analysis ...... 16 3.1 Perspective and Identification with Sherlock/Sherlock´s side of the story.. 16 3.2 Moriarty as a concept and not just a character (more than just a villain) ... 21 3.3 Moriarty – as he is depicted as alterity ...... 28 3.3.1 Expectations/schemes ...... 28 3.3.2 Scenes ...... 32 4 Conclusion ...... 56 5 German summary ...... 59 6 Bibliography ...... 61 7 Erklärung ...... 65 8 Appendix ...... 66

3

1 Introduction In 2010 the BBC launched the crime drama Sherlock, featuring the famous detective Sherlock Holmes in a modern day London. Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat co-created the TV-series that concentrates on Sherlock Holmes as an investigator who uses modern techniques as well as his enormous intellect to help the police solve crimes. The drama consists of two series - with three ninety minutes episodes each - so far. The second series was aired in early 2012 and the third series has been announced for January 2014. The choice to adapt Sir Conan Arthur Doyle’s stories into the twenty- first century is one important difference between this and other productions. Critics often praise how well the adaptation depicts a modern Sherlock Holmes while still staying true to Arthur Conan Doyle’s work (e.g. cf. Roush 2010, Hale 2010). For the creators, this however made no difference in the portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. In the original stories the detective is a modern man using modern ways to solve problems; depicting Sherlock Holmes1 as a modern detective was one of the main goals in this new production, and not the setting: Much as we love Sherlock Holmes, we love Victoriana. Many of the adaptations become about the period as opposed to about the story. (Moffat, In 'Sherlock', A Classic Sleuth For The Modern Age 01:03)

A crucial change however is the importance of Moriarty2 as Sherlock’s archenemy in this production. Moriarty – as I will explain in more detail in chapter 3 – has become a well known antagonist to Sherlock Holmes in contemporary Western culture. His figure often appears in relation to the detective - may it be in films like Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (Ritchie 2011), other TV series like Elementary - where Moriarty is actually a woman - (Doherty 2012-) or novels and short stories. Even in the German audio drama Die Drei Fragezeichen there is an episode concerned with him (154/Botschaft aus der Unterwelt 2012).

1 Actor Benedict Cumberbatch 2 Actor Andrew Scott 4

However, his role in Sherlock is very different from the original stories and most adaptations where he only appeared a couple of times. Although his appearance is undoubtedly also of importance in those, Sherlock takes this one step further. Co-creator Moffat explains the decision to change Moriarty’s role as such:

Moriarty was the nightmare of his time, the idea – in Doyle’s time – that crime could be organised - the idea that crime could be a centrally organised thing - was the nightmare then. What is our nightmare? Our nightmare is primarily the suicide bomber, the enemy that doesn´t priorities their own survival, the lack of rationality, the fact that there is nothing that you both want that you can negotiate with. You can´t make peace with somebody who only wants war. And that´s where we went with Moriarty. We wanted someone like Sherlock Holmes, and as clever as Sherlock Holmes, and as focused as Sherlock Holmes, who was completely barking mad. So we went for madness. (Steven Moffat & Benedict Cumberbatch RE: "Reichenbach Fall" 00:10)

“Our nightmare”, as Moffat phrases it, is that threat of someone who does not conform to social norms of our culture. With Moriarty the series depicts an alterity that is attributed with a “lack of rationality”, but still manages to be quite similar to the individual that does conform to the norms. Moriarty is not just the character who gets to “kill” Sherlock like Professor Moriarty did in The Final Problem (Doyle 301-318) - but in this adaptation, he is also re-presenting the concept of alterity to Sherlock from the first episode on. Therefore he plays a crucial part not only in the feared destruction of Sherlock’s identity, but more importantly also in the construction of Sherlock’s identity in the first place. This thesis will therefore illustrate how alterity is the most important part in constructing identity in Sherlock – so far. As the second series ended with a cliff hanger – Moriarty dead and Sherlock faking his own death – one will have to see just what effect this destruction of alterity will have on Sherlock’s process of identity formation in the forthcoming third series. Because he is the other that Sherlock himself sees most important as his opponent, this thesis focuses on the role of Moriarty as representation of the concept of alterity. One could also consider Irene Adler3 – who appears in the first episode of the second season A Scandal in Belgravia – as alterity. Although she can clearly be seen as some other to Sherlock, especially

3 Actor Lara Pulver 5

sexually, he himself does not choose to make this part of his identity crucial. He states “I consider myself married to my work”, when John Watson asks him about his personal life (A Study in Pink 00:51:12). He does not even think of himself as a man in that way, but focuses all his energy on his work as a consulting detective. Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss point this out in the episode’s audio commentary:

Moffat: He’s not interested at all. He’s interested in what his brain is doing. Gatiss: The rest is transport. (00:51:30)

Sherlock is depicted as asexual. Neither John nor Mrs Hudson – the people that are closest to him – know if he has ever had a physical relationship. A sexual being like Irene Adler then certainly is his other, but he himself does not choose his disinterested in sex to be one of his important character traits. Therefore, Moriarty, as his opponent in his line of work, is more important than Irene Adler as a woman. While he dismisses Irene’s effects on him in the end, he takes Moriarty’s importance for constructing his own identity very seriously. Sherlock is not the only TV series where there is such a constellation of the protagonist fighting a sometimes invisible opponent. There are many examples that follow the same story of the main character consulting an investigative authority and having an enemy that determines how they see themselves. These fictions are made for a mainstream audience and their main intention is to entertain, still it is remarkable how similar they depict the constellation of opponents and therefore show how their viewers perceive antagonists as a crucial part for the protagonist to constructs his/her identity. Profiler Will Graham investigates Hannibal Lector – only after they worked together on other cases – in Hannibal (Fuller 2013-); Consultant Adrian Monk still tries to catch the murderer of his wife while working with the police in Monk (Breckman 2002-2009); Former FBI agent Ryan Hardy consults the FBI in cases connected with Joe Carrol in The Following (Williamson 2013); Richard Castle seeks inspiration for crime novels while working with the New York Police Department in Castle, and one killer – 3XK – appears again and again to haunt the investigators (Marlowe 2009-). Pretend mentalist Patrick Jane consults the CBI and seeks revenge for the murder of his family 6

committed by Red John (Heller 2008-). In a similar way Shawn Spencer pretends to be a psychic to work with the Santa Barbara Police Department in Psych; here there are also re-occurring killers – Mr. Yin and Mr. Yang - who focus on Shawn (Franks 2006-). All the opponents just mentioned have major influence on how the protagonists identify themselves. In Sherlock, the opponent Moriarty is very prominent; the fact that the series is an adaptation - and therefore the audience is able to compare it to its source material - makes it possible for the viewer to spot the importance of Moriarty as the antagonist. Linda Hutcheon states that adaptations are “haunted at all times by their adapted texts” (2006: 6). There are many forms of adaptations. In fact, “they are everywhere today” (Hutcheon 2006: 2). There is a long history of adaptations and they are an integral part of Western culture. Medieval paintings showing biblical scenes, Shakespeare borrowing from ancient Greek mythology and the opera re-writing literature for the stage, are traditional principals of adaptation (cf. Andrew, 2000: 31; Hutcheon, 2006: 6f.). Having said that, adaptations are often regarded as inferior to their original text4 which does not do them justice; therefore, Linda Hutcheon calls for accepting and appreciating adaptations for what they are – adaptations (cf. 2006: 6). However, “[t]he broader notion of the process of adaptation has much in common with interpreting theory, for in a strong sense adaptation is the appropriation of a meaning from a prior text” (Andrew 2000: 29). The text itself is not only a link between both author and reader, but it is also coded and context bound. Every text is rooted in its own time, place and culture. By adapting it in a different time and context, its original meaning can be seen much more clearly (cf. Hutcheon 2006: 142). Therefore, “[a]daptation is representation, but representation without replication” (7). The creators of the series clearly had to alter certain details to be able to set the story in a different time period than in the original stories, but to increase Moriarty’s impact on Sherlock is an alteration that has a different motivation than keeping the story up to date. The aim of this thesis is to present the effect of this said prominence of Moriarty – who is treated as an alterity: he plays a very important role in Sherlock’s identity construction.

4 The term ‘text’ is used not only to refer to written work but all other concepts of text. For more information on the definition of text see ‘Text’ and ‘Textsorten’ in Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie (706; 710). 7

This thesis starts out to describe concepts such as identity, alterity and the construction of those (chapter 2.1). It will then deal with concepts of reality and fiction and how the perception of these concepts should be in the context of analysing the TV series (chapter 2.2). Finally, chapter 3 will analyse how these concepts are depicted in Sherlock and how they work there. The thesis focuses on how the figure of James Moriarty affects the identity construction of Sherlock Holmes overall in the series, and especially looks at six key scenes which demonstrate how alterity is depicted to work in this adaptation.

2 Theory

2.1 The importance of alterity for identity construction The fact that there is the necessity of something that one can see oneself in contrast with is consistent in the works of the theorists who deal with the formation of identity: Sigmund Freud developed his theory of the unconscious that influences the ego of the individual, Jacques Lacan emphasises the importance of the Other to identify oneself and Kristeva coined the term of abjection to describe the way the subject distances itself from certain facets it does not want to associate itself with. Edward Said describes identity and its need for a constructed alterity in order to identify itself in a national/cultural context. Sigmund Freud developed his theory of identity construction from the assumption that the ego is in opposition to the unconscious id to the realisation that the unconscious is a part of the ego and the superego. According to Freud, the ego faces the id, the super-ego and the external world. The id tries to determine what the ego does; it is the structure of the unconscious drives which the individual seeks to satisfy. The structure of the super-ego consists of morals and values that the individual is taught by its environment as it is raised. The ego tries to satisfy both urges to follow the rules of society on the one hand and to achieve what its id desires. Although external circumstances are important for the development of the ego - as it constantly tries to exist according to its regulations - the individual is a closed system (cf. The Freud Reader 1989: 629 ff).

8

Jacques Lacan – in distinction to Freud - links the relation to the self to the relation to some other. Andreas Cremonini describes this difference like this: Dabei geht er insofern über Freud hinaus, als er eine soziale Dimension oder intersubjektive Dimension in die Psyche einführt. Bei Freud – das hat man ihm auch vorgeworfen, das wäre sein biologischer Solipsismus – da ist das Psychische sehr eng an das Organische angegliedert, und deshalb geht Freud – manchmal sehr naiv – davon aus, dass der einzelne ein organisch abgeschlossenes Ganzes ist. Und für Lacan hingegen ist das intra- psychische - also mein intra-psychisches - Selbstverhältnis, gekoppelt, oder durchkreuzt, durch ein inter-subjektives, oder inter-psychisches Verhältnis zum andern. Diese beiden Dinge werden bei Lacan zusammen[geführt]. Und da geht er deutlich über Freud hinaus. (2010 32:27)

Other than Freud, Lacan describes the other as part of the identity, which is no closed system. The individual notices that beginning with the mirror stage. With the mirror stage, Lacan explains what happens to an individual who is able to see himself/herself as an object for the first time. Before this stage, the child does not recognise that it is looking at a reflection of itself when it looks into a mirror. But as soon as it has reached a certain age it is able to recognise itself in that reflection. The child can experience itself – and therefore identify itself - with the help of the other in the mirror (cf. Widmer 2010 36:40). The child realises it is one entity: one subject (cf. Lacan 1973: 67). At this point the child discovers that the other in the mirror is part of its identity - not only visually, but also mentally (cf. Widmer 2010 38:05). This “first sense of identity is a cause not only for jubilation but also of alienation“ (Stavrakakis 2004: 24). Recognising that there is some other that is part of one’s identity appears strange to the individual. Lacan also differentiates between the other and the Other. The first denotes the real, invisible core of the human - that can never be represented in total – although it can be symbolised to some extent - and which always will be unknown to the individual; none the less it is part of the individual’s identity. The second denotes the existing circumstances to which an individual is born in to: it is the symbolic, the language, a child is raised in (cf. Widmer 2010 41:10). Yannis Stavrakakis explains that the alienation, first experienced because of the other, never disappears, but is taken to another level: to that of the Other; this alienation cannot be resolved by identification (cf. 2004: 25). According to Lacan, the other and the Other both determine the identity construction of the individual. 9

Julia Kristeva places the start of a distinction from the other earlier than Lacan: “the separation that is necessary for the subject to construct an identity is present from its birth when it is expelled from the mother´s body. This is where abjection becomes important” (Lloyd 2004: 141). The abject is what is “opposed to I” but it is not an “ob-ject facing me, which I name or imagine”, as Kristeva describes it (1982: 1). The abject disturbs and intrigues the individual at the same time: “It beseeches, worries, and fascinates desire, which, nevertheless, does not let itself be seduced. Apprehensive, desire turns aside; sickened, it rejects” (1982: 1). The subject is in constant endeavour to eliminate the abject; it does not want to identify itself with it although it part of it: The abject is that which consciously we recoil from, which horrifies us, but which is nevertheless part of our subjectivity and part of our culture; it is that which paradoxically repels as it fascinates. (Lloyd 2004: 142)

Freud noted something similar when he described the uncanny as something that initially was part of the familiar, the known, but then is expelled only to not be recognised as being familiar (cf Freud 1919). The uncanny then is something that the individual or culture suppresses but which haunts it nonetheless – like the abject also does.

Edward Said famously put these concepts in a context of national/cultural identities and alterities. He argues that the identity (Western culture in this context) constructs, oppresses and to rules over its alterity (the Orient in this context). The alterity exists for the sole reason for identity to differ from it and therewith construct its own identity in contrast. The process of Orientalism describes this way of Western culture dealing with alterity. Identity sees the need to categorise its others and therefore gains power to describe and be an expert on it. Although these constructs are highly artificial, they are given as natural. By naming and constructing its alterity, the individual dominates the other. The construct of identity needs others – which might change in order to adapt it to the identity’s need. Said even calls this other an “alter ego” (Said 1994: 332), which emphasises its necessity to exist for the identity to be constructed; it changes as the individual’s culture changes in order to still be relevant as the other. His account on the alterity’s necessities and functions is still just as valid concerning individual identity and alterity as it is in a national context (cf. Said 1994). 10

Jürgen Habermas argued that an individual needs to be embedded in its society for its identity construction to be successful: Die durch Selbstidentifikation erzeugte und durchgehaltene symbolische Einheit der Person beruht ihrerseits auf der Zugehörigkeit zur symbolischen Realität einer Gruppe, auf der Möglichkeit einer Lokalisierung in der Welt dieser Gruppe. Eine die individuellen Lebensgeschichten übergreifende Identität der Gruppe ist deshalb Bedingung für die Identität des einzelnen. (Habermas 1974: 27)

This shows that although the individual needs an other to differ from, it also needs to belong to a group which it can identify with, therefore something he can be identical with. This group identity determines the attributes an individual identifies with and the features it rejects for his own identity and therefore projects them onto the alterity.

2.2 Concept reality/fiction, film techniques The artificial constructs exist not only in everyday life to guide individuals and groups in our society but they are also used in fiction for various reasons. Fiction represents these constructs in various ways. It does not only entertain, it is also used by its creators to give certain scenarios a trial. Episodes - that one could also imagine to happen in real life - may be lived through in fiction first to explore their meanings or consequences. But also scenarios that do not follow our culture’s setting of rules – may they be social or even physical – can be tested. A fictional character does not have to subject to the same limitations one might have to in real life, but is able to give a different approach a try. The designer of this fictional world the characters inhabit makes up the rules for their environment. They may be quite similar to the rules our culture set up or vary from them, but a reader/viewer always has to make sure to know one is entering a set of artificial rules. Jens Eder emphasises the importance of this process when analysing films, and their characters in particular (Eder 2008) The designer of a fictional world can create new concepts of identity or confirm old ones by filling in empty spaces with something unknown – an alterity – that might serve as an alternative to one’s own existence and identity. Fictional characters can show a sketch of another or unknown way of being and offer new perspectives (cf. Eder 2008: 21). 11

Given that these concepts of identity and alterity are artificial, one should consider that their environment, namely our reality, is a construct as well – a construct that we must learn to accept and live in. Nietzsche puts it like this: Die Frage ist, wieweit es lebenfördernd, lebenerhaltend, arterhaltend, vielleicht gar artzüchtend ist; und wir sind grundsätzlich geneigt zu behaupten, daß die falschesten Urteile (...) uns die unentbehrlichsten sind, daß ohne ein Geltenlassen der logischen Fiktionen, ohne ein Messen der Wirklichkeit an der rein erfundenen Welt des Unbedingten, Sich-selbst- Gleichen, ohne eine beständige Fälschung der Welt durch die Zahl der Mensch nicht leben könnte, - daß Verzichtleisten auf falsche Urteile ein Verzichtleisten auf Leben, eine Verneinung des Lebens wäre. (1964: 10)

He emphasises that even if one is aware of the difference between how reality seems to be and how reality really is, one has to confirm to the regulations, which come to exist because of these differences, in order to not negate life itself. Through this fabrication of the world to a reality that seems to be something rather than actually being it, the inhabitants of this reality will have to apply rules that come within this fiction of reality and live according to them. This constant fabrication of our surrounding and its meaning is what gives order to our culture; the way how reality seems to be makes it possible to set rules and to live in it. In order to understand our culture, one has to see it as an object – just as the individual has to objectify itself so it can identify itself. Making culture and its constructs the objects of a fictional account in literature, film or theatre helps the observer of this fiction to gain the distance from his/her artificial reality and evaluate it. This step is necessary for the experience of fiction as a representation of cultural constructs. The constructs of identity and alterity, as well as the concept of reality, are necessary for the individual to orient itself in society. Even though one might see their artificiality at some point one still has to conform oneself to them as everybody else does. To take a step back so that one can have an objective look at these constructs is not possible; culture and its artificial reality always surround the individual. One cannot look at culture as if one was not part of it. Fiction allows the reader or viewer to take that step back to see this representation of culture as an object. This makes it possible to see and evaluate culture more objectively. Some fiction tends to let the observer forget that s/he is dealing with fiction – but there are also other presentations of stories emphasising the fact that they are made up. When the representation emphasises its constructed 12

character and artificiality reader/viewer who experiences this piece of fiction is encouraged to question the presented concepts. The consequence of that could be a reassurance or a negation of different concepts; and since one is dealing only with a representation the individual would actually have the possibility to criticise without negating these concepts in “real” life. Bertold Brecht coined the term of epic theatre, which points out its constructed character. The reason for this is that the audience is forced to actually think about what they are seeing, and not just take it in without criticising it. Alienation makes it possible to critically challenge the presented concepts: Die Darstellung setzte die Stoffe und Vorgänge einem Entfremdungsprozeß aus. Es war die Entfremdung, welche nötig ist, damit verstanden werden kann. Bei allem „Selbstverständlichen“ wird auf das Verstehen einfach verzichtet. Das „Natürliche“ musste das Moment des Auffälligen bekommen. Nur so konnten die Gesetze von Ursache und Wirkung zu Tage treten. (Brecht 1957: 63)

Brecht argues that a representation has to be detectable to be fiction. The intention to make it seem as real as possible would result in an audience that does not understand its meaning – and would not even attempt to do so. Only when the audience critically examine what they see they can discuss and understand it (cf. Brecht 1957: 106). The sole reason for the alienation effect is to show the world in a way that it can be dealt with (cf. 114). It makes the concept of reality an object; the audience can observe and study it rationaly rather than being emotionally involved in the story. The main interest of the epic theatre is to show human interaction and how it reveals the impact of social rules; therefore human behaviour is depicted as not being static but depending on social relations as well as being able to change these relations. To discourage the audience falling for illusions there are some techniques that Brecht points out. The most important one is to make the artificiality of the performance obvious. An actor does not become a certain character on stage, but s/he portrays them (cf. 109) - s/he is able to comment on that character by not identifying with it and therefore encourages the audience to forge a critical opinion (cf. 112). This relationship between actor and audience can only be achieved through the non-existence of the fourth wall (cf. 107). The setting of a performance is also quite important. The audience should be able to identify the arrangements that have been made 13

to illustrate something: for example there should be no attempt to hide the sources of light. The audience has to realise the function of those lights rather than not seeing the intention to illuminate something (cf. 261). Placing choirs in the audience apeals to them to take control; the audience must not get lost in the performance, but has to emancipate itself from the represented world as well as from the representation itself (cf. 47). Music is used to comment on an issue rather than just accompany it (cf. 21). These devices let the audience take notice of the construction of fiction and are used to cause pleasure in the transformation of reality; it is not enough to expect a presentation of reality and recast realisations (cf. 127). Brecht asks for a performance to mean more than just entertainment; the audience has to be encouraged to see the representation of reality, realise that it is just a representation and therefore is able to evaluate the concepts that are represented. The distance - that is necessary to properly form an opinion – is created by alienation. The represented concepts can be discussed by discussing their representation.

There is also the argument, whether a representation could in fact refer to something real. Linda Hutcheon argues that in postmodernism, representation does not grant access to what it refers to, but enables a creation of this referent itself by understanding it: The postmodern, as I have been defining it, is not a degeneration into ‘hyperreality’5 but a questioing of what reality can mean and how we can come to know it. It is not that representation dominates or effaces the referent, but rather that it now self-conscioulsy acknowledges its existence as representation – that is, as interpeting (indeed as creating) its referent, not as offering direct and immediate access to it. (Hutcheon 1989: 34)

In the context of films, the representation then would not refer to a real referent in the viewers’ reality, but give meaning to this referent and evaluate it as well as make this step possible for the audience. It is important to be aware of the impact that has. The creator of a film chooses how to represent concepts, therefore encourages their audience to interpret these representations a certain way. The creator’s or director’s views are especially emphasised by using expressionist camera techniques (cf. Monaco 1981:

5 Baudrillard coined the term of ‘hyperreality’, describing how representation – ‘simulacra’ – are not referring to anything other than themselves. Hyperreality presents itself deliberately as something 14

149) as opposed to using techniques that an audience would consider realistic. While realistic filming helps to make dominant discourses stay dominant – because what is depicted as real is likely to believed true (cf. Burton 2002: 157) – an expressionist film can express the creator’s view or opinion on the concepts s/he is presenting. Expressionist techniques include various different camera angles and cantings or changes of focus in one shot as opposed to realistic techniques that keep the camera leveled and largely keep everything in focus (cf. Monaco 1981: 69, 77). Just as epic theatre restrains from presenting a realistic setting, expressionist film can emphasise its artificiality. Unusual techniques help to startle the audience and realise the construct they are watching is indeed constructed. Lighting, sound, pace and perspective can be used by the creator/director his/her view on the presented.

Detective fiction is special in the way it represents constructs: as a narration alone they have their own rules which they have to comply with in order to be the successful composed story of a crime, its investigation and its solution. Gerd Egloff argues that due to these regulations every part of detective fiction – even every character – becomes a construct that is the same in most crime dramas (cf. Egloff 1974: 19 f). This is comparable to the point Jens Becker makes when he describes detective fiction as modern fairy tales. They manage to create their own reality – with their own heroes and villains as well as their own environment and values (cf. Becker 1975: 5). In fairy tales there are also similar characters, scenes and modes of narration. Barbara Korte argues that the depiction of the crime and the way it is solved allows for a interpretation of the culture they derrive from. She explains further that one can recognize our modern need for orientation and establishing of our identity in a society that grows bigger and faster in these fictions, as their treatment of reality offers orientation (cf. Korte 2009: 08 f). Detective fiction in film has then even more regulations for the depection of this narration. As well as the reader expects certain things story-wise, the audience expects the film/series to follow certain rules regarding technique. constructed and therefore the reality we live in seems to be real in comparison, although everything – 15

Many rules that apply to detective stories also apply to detective films (cf. Bordwell 1985: 75f), as both readers and viewers have to be able to do the same work when while experiencing the fiction: with the help of different clues they try to solve the case before or together with the detective. Gerd Egloff discusses a list which was created by Ronald A. Knox to protect the fair play between an author and a reader. Some aspects are still kept today, not only in written stories but in films as well. These are three examples of that list, which was published in 1928: The stupid friend of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal any thoughts which pass through his mind; his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader.

No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right.

The detective must not himself commit the crime. (Egloff 1974: 25f)

These are regulations that deal with the plot of a detective fiction, but in films there are some regulations that apply especially because of the medium of the story’s representation. The audience has learned to recognise certain techniques which are used for narration in film. One example commonly used in the genre of the crime drama is the cut to flashbacks with a voice over of the detective as he solves the crime (cf. Bordwell 1985: 78). The viewer trusts this depiction to be true, just as s/he has learned that from other depictions. The audience also expects certain techniques to be used so that they are able to identify clues that help them to reconstruct the crime or characterise figures. The shift of focus is a helpful indication to see what is emphasised and what could be of importance when the detective solves the crime. Close ups or extreme close ups are common shots that help the audience to be able to see the same things as the investigator. Films featuring a detective and his/her work encourage their audience to solve the case along with the investigator. This motivates the viewer to critically think about what is depicted and therefore s/he is also able to take this a step further to think not only about the representation but also about its meaning. Because of the rationality of their content, most detective films aim to depict their plot as realistic as possible. This means that the narrative does reality and its representation – is an illusion (cf. Baudrillard 2006) 16

not draw attention to itself but the story that is told is the main focus (cf. Burton 2002: 156). In the following chapters this thesis will attempt to apply these theories to the series Sherlock regarding the figure of Moriarty and his role for the construction of Sherlock’s identity.

3 Analysis

3.1 Perspective and Identification with Sherlock/Sherlock´s side of the story Dr. John Watson6 is the first character to be seen, and to be characterised: the episode starts with flashbacks of John’s time as a soldier and then shows him alone in his apartment (A Study in Pink 2010). The next scene shows him with his therapist. The viewer gets to know that he has trouble coping with his past. John, as the first person to be introduced to the audience on a very personal level (first he is shown in his bed and then in session with his therapist), is hereby marked as one of the protagonists. Also the fact that he says “Nothing happens to me” (A Study in Pink 00:02:02), as the camera slowly zooms in on him, just before the opening credits start, makes it plausible to assume this is to some extent his story. The following would then be the proof or counterproof of his assumption that nothing ever happens to him. The score in the scene when John has trouble sleeping is the piece War (Arnold and Price); it is a theme that reappears in connection with John later and also is a slower, gloomier variation of the Opening Titles (Arnold and Price). The next characters that are shown are Lestrade and Donovan7 - representing the police – at a press-conference. They are presented as able police officers, who nonetheless are incapable of solving a murder-case. Here Sherlock’s detective skills already emerge via text-messages to the journalists and the police. He is characterised – even before he is shown – as clever, and also as annoying to the officers:

Donovan: You’ve got to stop him do this [sending text messages that say the police is wrong]. He’s making us look like idiots. Lestrade: If you can tell me how he does it, I’ll stop him. (A Study in Pink 00:07:04)

6 Actor Martin Freeman 7 Actors Rupert Graves and Vinette Robinson 17

Sherlock appears in a later scene opening a body bag; the camera shows him from the point-of-view of the body: upside down on the screen (A Study in Pink 00:08:20). Because of his questions about the body he is immediately recognisable as the detective. An officer investigating a case would not ask “how fresh” a body was (00:08:27), and an amateur would not be allowed to take part in this situation. This is a man capable of getting into a morgue to experiment in unconventional ways (thrashing the corpse with a riding crop8) and not having to follow the same rules as officers of the law. The viewer has to conclude that this is Sherlock Holmes. The music theme at that point is The Game Is On (Arnold and Price); it appears again on various occasions involving Sherlock in action. Also introduced in the pilot are: Mrs Hudson the landlady, Molly the forensic doctor, Anderson the crime scene investigator and Mycroft Holmes, Sherlock’s brother, and his assistant who both work for the government9.

The focus of the series clearly is on Sherlock and his perspective. Even the title Sherlock names him as the protagonist. Also John, as the other lead character, plays an important role for the audience to identify with the action that takes place. How is it that the audience recognise Sherlock and John as the focalisers they then side with? A number of techniques can be applied. The most prominent is how the camera shows them and their perspective. This technique works in connection with the use of light, sound and music to characterise a figure. Sherlock and his “science of deduction”10 are introduced to the audience in the first episode. The presentation of his examinations of bodies or crime scenes is a quite remarkable one, as non-diegetic words allow the viewer to follow Sherlock’s conclusions. Sherlock first baffles John with the deduction that the latter just came back to London from military service and has

8 Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat wanted to show this reckless side of Sherlock, which is not depicted in other adaptations (audio commentary, A Study in Pink 00:08:55); they also show him covered in blood holding a harpoon in The Hounds of Baskerville (00:01:41). Beating corpses with a stick in order to see how it bruises after death is mentioned in A Study in Scarlet before Stamford introduces Watson to Holmes (Doyle: 149). 9 Actors Una Stubbs, Louise Brealey, Jonathan Aris, Mark Gatiss and Lisa McAllister 10 Sherlock even has a website where he advertises this; this website can also be visited by viewers: http://www.thescienceofdeduction.co.uk/ 18

problems with his brother (A Study in Pink 00:18:24). This is the only mistake Sherlock makes, as John has a sister. In their taxi ride to a crime scene Sherlock explains how he knows so much about John. The audience is here introduced to Sherlock’s quick wit as well as the camera technique that is used to illustrate Sherlock’s explanations. Extreme close ups are used to show the audience the details which Sherlock focuses on and their importance for the deduction. This is an introduction to his skills as a consulting detective, a job that he invented himself (00:18:12). To introduce the audience to this code that is used for showing Sherlock’s thoughts on observations, the first deduction presented here revolves around an everyday object – a mobile. The next step to familiarise the viewer with this technique is the investigation of a crime scene. The audience can now watch, as Sherlock does what Sherlock Holmes is known for: solving crimes. Close ups and extreme close ups again show what Sherlock pays attention to. Added to that, non-diegetic11 letters represent his thoughts on these things (figure 1) (00:24:37). They also show his of process thinking; when Sherlock dismisses the assumption that the murder victim scratched “Rache” into the floorboards, the letters that say “RACHE German (n.) revenge” dissolve as well. The audience is able to perceive of this as a technique that will be used again later. They are given two examples of deductions and therefore can recognise this element when it is used again without difficulties. During Sherlock’s investigation of the body, there is also sound accompanying the close ups. As Sherlock focuses on the dead woman’s left hand and the word she has carved into the floorboards, there is a quiet carving sound to illustrate Sherlock thinking about the last moments before this woman died. Other than words there are also non-diegetic pictures or symbols that are depicted as thoughts. When Sherlock and John chase after a cab in A Study in Pink (00:51:20), Sherlock imagines the route it will take and therefore can choose the best way to follow it. As they run to catch up with the cab, the map depicting the route Sherlock imagines is also shown. In The Hounds of Baskerville, Sherlock uses the technique of a mind palace to remember things he stored in there (01:10:37). His thoughts are visible for the audience

11According to Genette, diegesis allows a multi-levelled approach to fictional text; with diegetic referring to the fictional world itself and non-diegetic to the mimesis (for additional information see Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorie (129)) 19

as tries to remember where he has heard of H.O.U.N.D. before. He also imagines a map of London in The Reichenbach Fall (00:40:50) in order to find the location of two kidnapped children. The map moves and enlarges in certain areas he focuses on. Presenting a crime that needs to be solved - and the way the detective does that - is a technique of making the audience identity with the protagonists unique to this genre. By limiting the viewer’s knowledge about past and upcoming events and surprising him/her with unexpected disclosures, the viewer is on the same level of knowledge as the protagonist/detective who needs to solve the case – and can therefore identify with him/her (cf. Bordwell 1985: 73). This also applies in Sherlock. The viewer can identify with Sherlock and John as they solve crimes. The music track that is often used in connection with Sherlock (The Game Is On) is also used as Sherlock leaves the crime scene. It emphasises his conclusion that the serial killer has made a mistake by taking the mobile of his victim, which Sherlock was looking for, and that Sherlock now has a chance to find out who is responsible for these crimes – this one is the forth suspicious suicide that Lestrade investigates. The piece of music ends as Sherlock exits the scene; as Watson then follows him there is again the theme War that accompanies him. The audience is encouraged to see Sherlock as a man full of energy; his movements are in correlation to the pace of the music. In contrast, John is shown as a calm and quiet man, and his theme confirms that. The music in Sherlock plays a part in the process of identification. It often represents the mood Sherlock and John are in and helps the viewer to understand these emotions. May it be excitement or anger, the soundtrack emphasises the things the audience see.

20

John and Sherlock comment on the concept of enemies in A Study in Pink and therefore encourage the audience to question these concepts as well:

John: People don’t have archenemies. Sherlock: Sorry? John: In real life. There are no archenemies, in real life. Doesn’t happen. Sherlock: Doesn’t it? Sounds a bit dull. John: Who did I meet then? Sherlock: What do people have then, in their real lives? John: Friends? People they know, people they like, people they don’t like. Girlfriends, boyfriends. Sherlock: As I was saying – dull. (00:24:25)

Not only that John dismisses the concept of an archenemy as something that does not exist in real life, he also fails to understand Sherlock’s notion that the concept of an enemy – which might not even be real - thrills him more than the “dull” relationships that people have in their “real” lives. This comment on the artificial construct of an archenemy is not as radical as an actor in epic theatre talking to the audience about what happens on stage, but it does encourage the audience to identify with John, because the viewer might have similar relations in his life that John talks mentions, and also to identify with Sherlock with and his opinion that those can be boring. The fact that John blogs about his adventures allows the viewer to take on this perspective. John can be perceived as one mode of narration in the series and is therefore trustworthy, as the viewer of a detection film tends to trust the presentation of facts. Sherlock and John represent the moral values that are also predominant in the culture the audience live in. Sherlock assures criminals being brought to justice – although he acts outside the rules of the authoritative institutions and therefore is able to make exceptions at some points – and John as a former soldier is his loyal companion.

21

3.2 Moriarty as a concept and not just a character (more than just a villain) Moriarty is not shown in the first episode. Typically, the pilot is the episode in which all important characters are introduced and started to be characterised. Their appearance or behaviour might change in the following episodes, but their constellation usually stays the same. So, in Sherlock’s pilot12, all of the figures that are important for the overall plot of the series are introduced; Moriarty is the only one that is just mentioned, and even that only at the end of the episode - when Sherlock already solved the murder mystery and the story arch of the episode is nearly closed. Firstly, the cab driver Jeff Hope, on a murder spree, confesses to Sherlock that he was warned about him, and when Sherlock tries to get more information the cab driver does not tell him about Moriarty:

Jeff Hope: Just someone out there who’s noticed. Sherlock: Who? [leans forward] Who would notice me? […] Jeff Hope: Got yourself a fan. Sherlock: Tell me more. Jeff Hope: That’s all you’re going to know. (A Study in Pink 01:06:35) [...] Sherlock: Who’d sponsor a serial killer? Jeff Hope: Who’d be a fan of Sherlock Holmes? You’re not the only one to enjoy a good murder. There’s others out there just like you, except you’re just a man. And they’re so much more than that. Sherlock: What do you mean… more than a man? An organisation… what? Jeff Hope: There’s a name that no-one says. And I’m not going to say it either (A Study in Pink 01:15:58)

Only when the murderer is shot and in agony, Sherlock brings him to reveal the name of his “fan”. And even then, Moriarty’s name is not just simply uttered, but screamed out loud – and Sherlock himself only mouths it:

Sherlock: Your sponsor. Who was it? The one who told you about me, my fan. I want a name. […] [steps on Hope’s shot wound to cause him pain] The name! Jeff Hope: Moriarty! [screams the name in pain] Sherlock: [mouths] Moriarty. (A Study in Pink 01:20:59)

12 The un-aired pilot is not taken into consideration here, as A Study in Pink is a revised version of it. 22

When Sherlock and John leave the crime scene, John notices that Sherlock has something on his mind: John: What are you so happy about? Sherlock: Moriarty. John: What’s Moriarty? Sherlock: I’ve absolutely no idea. (A Study in Pink 01:26:43)

So, at the end of the first episode Sherlock speaks Moriarty’s name for the first time, but he still does not know anything about him. At this point, Moriarty is a concept that Sherlock just came across; and as soon as he does, he is intrigued by the thrill of having someone to face as an opponent. The idea that there is someone that could be dangerous to him – someone he should look out for - clearly delights Sherlock. Moriarty is talked about – and established as the opponent that apparently is “more than a man” (above). But he is in no way being depicted as a character as all of the other figures are. The decision not to actually show Moriarty until he is already an established figure is a first hint to understand the man that lets others do the dirty work and only shows himself when he wants to. Throughout the whole series, contact with other characters is initiated by Moriarty. Even when Sherlock does contact him, it is because Moriarty lets him do so. When the government/Mycroft Holmes arrests him it is because Moriarty wants them to do so in order to gather information on Sherlock from Mycroft.

Moriarty is shown as an alter ego to Sherlock. Andrew Scott states the following about his role:

They´re the same person, they’ve just gone different ways. Moriarty has to match Sherlock, he has to be intelligent and quick-witted. He has to understand him. He has a total obsession with Sherlock, and I think Sherlock is obsessed with him, too. They need one another. (Adams 2012: 73)

Moriarty is not just a character like the other figures in the series, but rather represents a constructed concept here. The concept of alterity - just like Moriarty in this series – is pre-determined in culture and helps the individual to identify itself. Just as Western culture has a picture of what can be counted as the other (for it itself constructs this concept), Sherlock has a pre- determined image and opinion of his enemy. And so do the viewers of 23

Sherlock. The audience believes to know how the characters, most of all Sherlock and Moriarty, should appear and behave. Although these presuppositions are partly proven to be wrong, some turn out to be right to a certain extent. The series makes their audience deal with these prejudices against Moriarty. And as the viewer deals with this presentation of alterity, they learn that those former assumptions are not maintainable. The more aspects of Moriarty are presented, the more he differs from the Moriarty one has in mind when thinking of the original stories or other re-presentations of this character. The creators of Sherlock even toy with their audiences’ expectations of how and who Moriarty might be. When Sherlock’s brother Mycroft is mistaken for Moriarty - what we think is the other turns out to be on our side. In the first episode, A Study in Pink, a mysterious man – who describes himself as Sherlock’s enemy – seemingly tries to threaten John into spying on Sherlock (00:33:45). The way he behaves and talks would be very suitable for the worst enemy Sherlock Holmes ever admitted knowing; he seems to be a powerful man: he CCTV cameras, has people following his orders – there is at least his assistant who accompanies John in the car to and from the empty warehouse – and he is able to get confidential reports on John’s medical status. He is also presented as quite intelligent: he claims that the psychiatrist’s diagnosis of John is wrong and gives a more suitable explanation of his problems that later will turn out to be right, speaks very eloquently and shows good manners. Also, his figure is more like the slender body Moriarty is mostly associated with, and not like the depiction of the man he actually turns out to be – Mycroft Holmes. When this slender, intelligent, powerful man - who talks about being Sherlock’s enemy - is first presented here, the viewer, who knows about Moriarty, concludes that this must be a depiction of that professor. Sherlock even tells John that this is the “most dangerous man” John has ever met (00:43:33). This encourages the audience to believe to have seen Moriarty, only so that they can be proven wrong at the end of the first episode. Moriarty’s presentation differs from other characters even regarding Andrew Scott’s performance. He portrays Moriarty in a quite theatrical manner by using – in comparison to the performance of the other actors - 24

exaggerated gesticulation. This different approach is a sign for Moriarty’s awareness of his environment’s constructive characteristic. He is often depicted in shots that allow his gestures to be noticed (figure 2). Moriarty is the only character that crosses borders between the diegetic and non-diegetic level. In A Scandal in Belgravia, he sends a text message to Mycroft Holmes. In the typical style of Sherlock, this message is depicted as non-diegetic letters appearing on the screen to represent the reading or writing of a text. Moriarty then blows those letters away. (figure 3) Typically, these texts are used to show the audience what a character has just read or even what deductions Sherlock makes when he looks at something. They have become one of the trademarks of this series13. These letters emphasise the construction and artificiality of the representation, as it is a visualisation of thoughts and conclusions that is not considered to be realistic. Sherlock also guides John and others – and therefore the audience as well - through his deduction, but the presentation of his observations in text form is a new code that is used in Sherlock. As the audience learn this code, they become acquainted with this technique and trust its reliability. But when another character is able to interact with this representation as well, the audience are reminded about the artificiality of it. The fact that Moriarty is the only one who is able to interact with these letters, shows that he does not belong to the same diegesis as the other characters do. There are instances when these letters change their form or movement in order to present a specific train of thoughts. One has been discussed earlier in chapter 3.1. These letters are presentations of thoughts; and only in the instant, when Moriarty interacts with them, do they become part of the diegetic level. Moriarty’s interference with them shows his ability to alter a construct. Just as he is able to change the construction of the TV series the audience are watching, he is able to influence the construction of concepts on the fictional level. Moriarty is also different from other characters in relation to the score. On two occasions the music he listens to becomes the non-diegetic music. When

13 The same font that is used for the underground system in London – P22 Johnston Underground - is used for these texts (cf. P22 Type Foundry). This is one example of how the creators of the series “fetishize modern London – in the way that the period versions fetishize Victorian London” (Gatiss, Bonus Material Series One 12:00)

25

he seemingly tries to steal the crown jewels, he listens to the overture of Gioachino Rossini´s La gazza ladra (The Thieving Magpie) with headphones, and this tune becomes the non-diegetic score for the scene (The Reichenbach Fall 00:06:00). When Sherlock and Moriarty meet on St Bartholomew’s rooftop (The Reichenbach Fall 01:08:22), the song Staying Alive is the score, but becomes diegetic as it is played on Moriarty’s phone. The audience recall that song from the beginning of A Scandal in Belgravia as Moriarty’s ringtone (00:01:40). Both of these pieces of music have been used in successful films before and are surely recognised by many of the viewers. A version of The Thieving Magpie´s overture (La gazza ladra Overture) was used in A Clockwork Orange (Kubrick 1971) and Staying Alive (BeeGees) is well known from Saturday Night Fever (Badham 1977). Even when there is no change from diegetic to non-diegetic music, the score that accompanies Moriarty is still noticeably different from other musical themes. When he is brought to his hearing (The Reichenbach Fall 00:10:15) - John and Sherlock are also preparing to go to court - the non-diegetic song playing is Sinnerman (Simone), which has been used in The Thomas Crown Affair (McTiernan 1999). All these three pieces differ from the rest of the score because they are not especially composed for this series; furthermore, they are connotated with meaning before they were used in Sherlock. The figure Moriarty is not characterised with new pieces that have been written especially for the TV series, therefore the viewer is not able to analyse him under equal conditions as with the other characters. Once the audience adapt themselves to a certain style of music, they will notice the difference considering Moriarty and consequently regard him as distinct from the other characters. His characterisation is therefore not as individualised as that of the other characters’; they have the privilege of music that has been especially composed for the purpose of characterising them – and Moriarty’s figure is not treated that way. This music also comments on the action at that time in the diegetic world – and Moriarty comments on it. Playing The Thieving Magpie, while Moriarty breaks into the Tower of London, is a comment on the figure Moriarty; Sinnerman describes him as well. He also directly comments on Staying Alive. With the exception of these pieces of music the compositions of Sherlock’s soundtrack create their own 26

connotations. Using them as themes for reoccurring characters or situations lets the audience follow the narration and understand it easier. Moriarty’s figure does not allow the viewer to rely on this knowledge about the score but makes him/her adapt to different music – that may very well already have a meaning for him/her from just knowing the songs or the films they have been used in before. The depiction of his importance in the series from the first episode on is the same as alterity is thought of – always present even though it cannot be grasped. Although he has such a great impact on the plot of the series and on Sherlock, his screen time is rather short. Even if the audience does not see him that much, Moriarty – as the depiction of the concept alterity - still manages to be involved in every episode. In the first series he finances the cab driver in A Study in Pink (01:16:35), is – unknown to Sherlock – responsible for the crime syndicate “Black Lotus” getting to London in The Blind Banker (01:26:46) and manages to occupy Sherlock with different cases to solve in The Great Game (Gatiss 2010). In the second series he helped Irene Adler as consulting criminal and gave her “advice how to play the Holmes boys” (A Scandal in Belgravia 01:19:30). Moriarty knows Sherlock well enough to even help others who want to beat him and instructs them. His involvement here actually motivates Sherlock to not let Irene Adler have her way when she threatens Mycroft/the British government to release secret information. At this point Sherlock actually seems to acknowledge defeat (01:19:19); only as Irene Adler admits she has had help from Moriarty, Sherlock seems to be motivated again and manages to regain control over her. The camera shows Irene Adler and Mycroft Holmes in focus sitting in the background; Sherlock is out of focus in the foreground. As she says: “Oh, Jim Moriarty sends his love.” (01:19:43) the focus changes on Sherlock and the audience see his reaction to this (figure 4). The score helps to represent the suspense Sherlock is in when he thinks about his opponent; his facial expression changes from being defeated to being thrilled by this revelation and also his body language changes: firstly he has two fingers resting at his temple and looks thoughtful, but when Moriarty is mentioned he clenches his hand and looks determined to not let Moriarty beat him. Moriarty also appears as Sherlock’s hallucination when Sherlock is intoxicated with a drug 27

which reinforces Sherlock’s greatest fears (The Hounds of Baskerville 01:21:18). Even though he has no involvement in the plot of this episode, the audience are still reminded of him as the greatest danger Sherlock sees for himself. In The Reichenbach Fall he succeeds to make the police and press believe that Sherlock is a fraud and leaves Sherlock no other choice than to fake his own death in order to keep his friends alive who are threatened to be killed by Moriarty’s aides. He is also responsible for assassins moving to Baker Street; a subtle hint to his invisible presence is the graffiti that one can see in Baker Street: “I.O.U”14 (figure 5)(01:12:20). Although the alterity – Moriarty – is not always visible or graspable, its presence still influences the individual and his identity at all times as well as it threatens to destroy cultural order. The conscious changes between diegetic and non-diegetic levels, as well as the figure Moriarty as the representation of the concept alterity, let the audience notice the constructed character of Sherlock. Just as an actor in epic theatre would remind the audience that they are watching a representation and should not identify with the fiction they watch, Moriarty does in this series. This contradicts the presentation of John and Sherlock, with whom the audience is in fact encouraged to identify (chapter 3.1). The different approaches to depicting the concept of identity and alterity show on the one hand that the audience could realise and discuss the constructiveness of both of these concepts, but the audience is only encouraged to do so regarding the concept of alterity. Regarding identity the series makes the point that it can be constructed (Sherlock as a fraud), but that this construction then is not the “real” identity (Sherlock as a clever detective) and that this “real” identity is not a construct but reality.

14 These are the words Moriarty uses when he states that he owes Sherlock a fall: “I owe you“ (00:25:44) when he comes to Sherlock’s apartment. After this encounter, one can see the words in big red letters painted on a wall. This also relates to the later scene on St. Bartholomew’s hospital. 28

3.3 Moriarty – as he is depicted as alterity

3.3.1 Expectations/schemes Most of the viewers of Sherlock do already have an idea about the character of Moriarty. From numerous presentations of Sherlock Holmes, his nemesis and their relationship, the viewers of this specific presentation may very well have formed a picture of how Moriarty has to be and to act, and how Sherlock Holmes thinks about him - at the very least they know that these figures do exist. Bordwell explains this specific schema which is “derived from everyday experience, other artworks, and so forth” as seen in relation with a new artwork and to bring “expectations and hypotheses” with it (Bordwell 1985: 32). In contemporary Western culture one could hardly think of someone watching Sherlock without ever having heard of or read about him - let alone having watched another film or TV-show featuring an adaptation of the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Therefore, the audience of Sherlock are treated as “schooled perceivers in contemporary Western culture” (cf. Bordwell 1985: 34). Bordwell, in this context, refers to watching a movie and knowing about the medium itself, the conventions regarding that medium story-wise on the one hand and style-wise on the other. The audience can for example expect the detective to take on and solve a crime in a crime drama as being a main part of the story. They are also likely to know about and be able to recognise uses of flashbacks to illustrate the explanation of the crime. In the case of a well known character constellation in a well known genre such as Sherlock this should be taken even further. One should assume that the audience will not only know how to watch the series and its style and what to expect of its story as a crime drama, but also will they have knowledge of the existence of the fictional detective and his antagonist. Linda Hutcheon uses the term “knowing and unknowing audiences” (Hutcheon 2006: 121) for the viewer that either does or does not know the canon of Sherlock Holmes; she explains the relation of the adapted work and the adaptation as such:

To experience it as an adaptation [...] we need to recognize it as such and to know its adapted text, thus allowing the latter to oscillate in our memories with what we are experiencing. In the process we inevitably fill in any gaps in the adaptation with information from the adapted text. (Hutcheon 2006: 120 f) 29

Audience members are to be divided on their level of knowing (Hutcheon 2006: 225). Some might focus on their knowledge of the adapted work, while others focus on references to other films – even other adaptations of the same work – or other cultural references such as the music that is used or the stylistic devices applied. Moriarty seems to be embedded in Western culture just as deep as Sherlock Holmes himself. Although his appearances in the original stories are brief15, the importance of this figure – namely his murdering the protagonist - has had such an impact on the Sherlock Holmes canon that many adaptations will feature Moriarty. Some examples are: Sherlock Holmes contra Professor Moriarty: Der Erbe von Bloomrod (Larsen 1911), the before mentioned Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (Ritchie 2011) or even The Great Mouse Detective (Clements and Mattinson 1986) – where detective Basil´s opponent is called Professor Ratigan. Andrew Scott himself said about him being cast as Moriarty and his approach to this character:

I was very aware, that I wouldn´t necessarily be the first person that people would think of as Moriarty. [...] I wanted it to be audacious. And it was written very audaciously, quite theatrically (Scott 2012 12:09).

He does not fit the expectations one has of Moriarty. May the viewer have knowledge of Professor Moriarty the way Doyle presented him or other adaptations did, Andrew Scott’s portrayal of this role and its impact are very different from what the audience first expects to see. Also the relation to Sherlock Holmes is varied. In this adaptation, Moriarty uses Sherlock because he admires his intellect and wants to play games before he decides that Sherlock should die. The viewer who does know Moriarty’s motivation in Doyle’s fiction is able to realise an important difference: Moriarty here is the one who enters Sherlock’s life. He is not only a villain that needs to be brought to justice, but also an alter ego of Sherlock who wants to get in touch with him. They are very much alike: both are very clever and both have trouble to completely fit into their social environment. But they both react differently when they are characterised as such. Sherlock defends his mental

15 He appears in The Final Problem and The Valley of Fear, and is mentioned in The Empty House, The Norwood Builder, The Missing Three-Quarter, The Illustrious Client and His Last Bow. 30

state when Anderson calls him a psychopath in Study In Pink: “I’m a high functioning sociopath.” (00:57:48). Moriarty on the other hand agrees when he and Sherlock meet for the last time and Sherlock is furious with him:

Sherlock: You’re insane Moriarty: You’re just getting that now? (The Reichenbach Fall 01:12:44) Although, typically, it is one of Sherlock Holmes’ great skills to disguise himself perfectly, in the BBC show this capability of acting as if one is someone else actually is one of Moriarty’s traits. Sherlock fakes to be someone else on numerous occasions without the actual need to dress up in complete costume: In The Blind Banker he claims to be a resident of an apartment-building he tries to get into (00:13:34). Here he does not even need to face the person he is talking to; he just uses a different tone of voice and lies to get what he needs. In A Scandal in Belgravia - the audience are actually presented with him trying to make a choice what to wear - he dresses up as a vicar in order to get into Irene Adler’s house, not knowing that she is waiting for him and knows who to expect (00:22:02). Later, in The Hounds of Baskerville he first acts like one of many tourists - looking for a hound - to get information from the owners of the hotel or a tour-guide (00:19:20); he does not even disguise physically. All he does is act the way he thinks will get him answers. In the same episode he impersonates his brother to get into a highly secured laboratory; the only “costume” he needs for that are a stolen ID and, again, a change in his mannerisms. Sherlock only disguises himself for reaching goals that are in the very near future; it does not work all of the time and he does not use any costume – just props: a jacket and hat form a uniform so that he gains access to an art gallery to examine a fake painting in The Great Game (01:00:05), a collar makes him look like a vicar so that he is trusted to enter Irene Adler’s residence (00:23:30) and stolen IDs let him take on the identity of his brother Mycroft or Lestrade. He does not use make up, fake hair or beards to impersonate different people like Sherlock Holmes used to do in the original stories. His attempts to deceive are not planned but arise from the situation 31

most of the time16. Moriarty on the other hand - who never had to disguise in the stories - has two very important sequences pretending to be someone else in Sherlock. In contrast to Sherlock’s attempts, these do both work out very well and drive the plot forward dramatically. When Moriarty appears for the first time (The Great Game 00:18:00) he is not shown as Moriarty but in disguise as Molly’s date Jim. He does not only change his mannerisms and tone of voice, but also his physical appearance, with being very well groomed, and clothes that make for him – and also for Sherlock – an authentic costume of a gay man who tries to act as if he was heterosexual. This disguise works on two levels; he not only fools Molly and John into believing he works for IT and wants to date Molly - but he also fools Sherlock with his pretended sexual orientation. When Moriarty is in disguise the second time, he pretends to be an actor hired by Sherlock to portray his nemesis (The Reichenbach Fall)(00:58:50). Again he wears a costume – casual clothes in contrast to designer-suits – and a different hair-style; not only these physical changes, but also his different behaviour make this a very good disguise. The facts that he keeps up this disguise for a considerable time - while working on this story together with the journalist - and that he already erodes the investigators’ trust in Sherlock by making him a suspect for kidnapping two children, make clear that this is a well elaborated role he plays. The audience would expect such behaviour from Sherlock Holmes rather than from Moriarty. This talent for disguise shows how much Moriarty is not what the audience expect him to be but rather takes on character traits that one would associate with Sherlock Holmes. Moriarty here is depicted as more willing to oscillate between different personalities. In today’s society it is expected to know which role to play and how to do that. This forms an image that is associated with ones identity – a persona. A persona often indicates something typical for an individual, and also his/her place in society (cf. Fuhrmann 1979: 91-94). Moriarty clearly distinguishes himself from that when he is comfortable taking on whatever role is needed to achieve his aims without much difficulty. There is no fixed persona Moriarty; even within one sentence he can go from calm to mad. His

16 At one point he does in fact dress up elaborately: when he saves Irene Adler from getting killed. This disguise – however well done it is – does not help Sherlock do investigate a case or deceive other characters who take a part in the series, but strangers. 32

different tones and facial expressions show an inability, or a refusal, to stay within his role ascriptions. So even when he does stay in his role as Sherlock’s opponent, he still oscillates between being angry and calm or happy and mad. His characteristic to change his speech pattern drastically - and without difficulty he even does that in the middle of a sentence – also reflect his personality that can change its behaviour without warning.

3.3.2 Scenes

“Consulting criminal. Brilliant.” Sherlock and Moriarty meet for the first time Sherlock actually meets Moriarty as his opponent for the first time at the end of series one in The Great Game (01:19:47). The meeting of them when Moriarty is in disguise as Molly’s boyfriend has been mentioned before, but during that encounter Sherlock does not realise who he is talking to. He does not see Jim as his opponent as he does later when Moriarty reveals himself. So Sherlock does not recognise Jim as his alterity, because he pictures Moriarty to be something else. But when he then realises who Moriarty is, he does accept this man to be his opponent – his other. The main focus of this episode is on different crimes which Moriarty has masterminded and which Sherlock is forced to investigate – an elaborate game of cat-and-mouse. When Sherlock links Moriarty to stolen missile plans on a memory stick, he arranges a meeting to finally face him. To Sherlock’s surprise though, Moriarty manages to take control over this encounter with taking John as a hostage by putting a bomb vest on him. The episode ends with a cliff hanger which is resolved in the second series (A Scandal in Belgravia 00:00:01). The scene opens with two establishing shots. The first one shows the whole darkened swimming pool; the camera is positioned at ground level and therefore the pool itself dominates the shot (figure 6). This proximity to the water allows the sound of ripples to become a realistic diegetic sound belonging to the space the camera shows. But the other sound during this shot – namely footsteps that let the audience know someone is approaching – cannot actually belong to the diegetic level of this shot; as the viewer will see after the second establishing shot, these are Sherlock’s footsteps – and he is at this point not yet in the pool area but behind a door. This is a subtle 33

element that makes the audience focus on Sherlock’s perspective. He is the one with whom the audience enters the scene; the shot that shows him entering the door actually places the camera in a position that makes the viewer seemingly follow him through the door (figure 7). His perspective is the one the audience will focus on. The second establishing shot shows the far end of the pool – where Moriarty later will appear – through the window in a door (figure 8). The shot after this, Sherlock is opening a door at the side of the pool from where the first establishing shot is taken from. With these shots the camera covers all the exits and entries that are used by Sherlock, John and Moriarty, as well as the space the scene takes place in. Although there are at least three other possible points where people could enter the swimming pool (these three are visible in the first establishing shot: one at the far end to the left and two doors on the second story – which is left in the dark; given the symmetry17 of this scene one could also assume that there are other doors mirroring the doors Moriarty enters and exits the scene through), these are of no importance for the scene. In the first establishing shot one can already see the door that Moriarty uses to enter the pool: there is light shining through its window. Also one can see the entry which John uses: there is a small patch of light visible that allures to an entry positioned in the middle of the changing cubicles on the left side of the pool. The entry itself is not shown explicitly; that makes it even more of a surprise to see John enter the scene – for the viewer and for Sherlock. By positioning the camera behind the door in the second establishing shot, it gives information about another entry, namely the one that Moriarty uses when he comes back into the swimming pool for a second time. The shot that shows Sherlock entering the scene does not show the entrance that John then uses, but still it establishes Sherlock’s position to this entrance and therefore his distance to John. With these three short shots not only the locations gets established, but also the ways the characters most likely will use to enter and exit it are. Although the structure of the swimming pool seems to be a simple one at first sight, the different possibilities of entering and exiting it make clear how unpredictable this meeting is for Sherlock. When he enters the swimming pool, he turns in 34

different directions and speaks to Moriarty, expecting him to show up at any point; but when Moriarty actually appears, he has to turn again to see where his opponent comes from (figure 10)(01:21:42). These multiple options can be compared to the various different possibilities of how the identity may be confronted with its alterity. Moriarty’s behaviour is unpredictable – here even his entrances and exits show this – just as the individual conceives of its alterity. The possibilities of how Moriarty might act are just as unclear as the abject “looming and haunting the security and stability“ of cultural order (Lloyd 2004: 142). Sherlock as the subject is not able to determine where and when Moriarty will reveal himself. He has not the power to control the Other. When to deal with an encounter with alterity cannot be predetermined. There are some bright light sources, but still it has been managed to keep the pool appear rather dark. The establishing shot shows that the second storey is left unlit. There is no action important for the plot up there; only the snipers have to be positioned in that area. They are not shown though; the only things the audience see of them are the red laser dots that mark their aim. It is emphasised that the action will take place on the ground floor. There are spotlights inside the pool that make the water seem very bright. The main light source though comes from the neon lights which are positioned above the changing cubicles. These cool lights emphasise the artificiality of the whole situation. The environment should be well known to most of the viewers – swimming pools often look very similar to each other – but this setting is still different from experiences one makes in a swimming pool. There are none of the typical noises of water splashing and of people who spend their leisure time there; also the brightness that is normally associated with places like that (daylight illuminating the area through the big windows, the pool is lit even at daytime and the light-coloured tiles reflect all this light) is turned to a bluish darkness (figure 11). Interestingly, the lighting changes when this meeting comes to a close in A Scandal in Belgravia (00:01:40). More than eighteen months lie between the filming of the beginning and of the end of this encounter. The second storey is even darker than it was before and the pool is brighter and more of a turquoise than of the light blue it was before. The bright lights that appear in contrast to the overall

17 symmetric shots like these re-occur frequently throughout the series of Sherlock and are only one 35

dark setting allow deep shadows. The ordinary place becomes quite a sinister one. Although the characters are depicted in an artificial setting, the depiction of that setting is quite realistic. This illustrates how concepts that do not appear naturally are still conceived of as if they did. Relying on those concepts as if they were real is a necessary act in living in the reality that we construct for our culture. The meeting of the other cannot be a natural act, as the concept of alterity - as well as the concept of our reality - is never natural. Sherlock decides where and when to meet Moriarty; he seems to be in control of the situation. But thinking through the logistics, one has to concern the trouble Moriarty went through to plan it, too. He has snipers who are positioned perfectly for the constellation of Sherlock, John and himself. He also had to get hold of John to put the IED vest on him and plan his retreat so he could leave without being followed. It is perfectly plausible to assume that Moriarty is actually the one in control of the situation. Although Sherlock believes he can lure his enemy to the pool with missile plans, Moriarty actually just used the memory stick to get Sherlock to meet him. It is a cat- and-mouse game – and both parties believe they will come out the winner. This is also evident when they both try to out-smart the other one and try to have the final say. Sherlock cannot leave any question unanswered, even when Moriarty is just teasing him:

Moriarty: Is that a British Army Browning L 9A1 in your pocket? Or are you just happy to see me? Sherlock: Both. [points gun at Moriarty] (01:22:01)

This is their first interaction as opponents. From the first moment on, Moriarty shows what he wants Sherlock to know. He is observant, knows enough about weapons to name them and knows Sherlock well enough to predict he would bring John’s gun with him18. He also shows that – although he does take this meeting seriously- he enjoys the power to joke about it. It is an often used joke in movies which genre places weapons in its story and parodies of these to confuse the bulge of a gun in a pocket for signs of arousal. Clearly example to emphasise the artificiality of fiction with the use of expressionist techniques.(figure 9) 18 John actually does not own a L9A1 but a L106A1 (cf. Sherlockology: John’s Pistol). One reason for this misstating could be a simple continuity-error, but another reason could also be that Moriarty does in fact not know that much about weapons (or Sherlock’s habits) after all. If this was the case, 36

he wants to make Sherlock uncomfortable. But Sherlock reacts in a way that shows Moriarty that he will not let himself be embarrassed. He also wants to show the power to joke about meeting his foe. Both of them think they are in control of their encounter by being more clever than the other. Sherlock thinks he is in control about both time and place of the meeting, but in fact Moriarty manages to dominate this encounter by being unpredictable. During their conversation both of them do not want the other one to have the final say: Sherlock: Consulting criminal – Brilliant. Moriarty: Isn’t it? [winks] No one ever gets to me. And no one ever will. [moves his head slightly from one side to the other] Sherlock: [cocks gun] I did. Moriarty: You’ve come the closest. Now you’re in my way. Sherlock: Thank you. Moriarty: Didn’t mean it as a compliment. Sherlock: Yes, you did. Moriarty: [shrugs] Yeah, okay, I did. (01:23:13)

When Moriarty leaves (before he comes back in again), their conversation ends like this:

Moriarty: Ciao, Sherlock Holmes. [turns around and leaves] Sherlock: Catch you later. [follows him slowly until he reaches John, still has his weapon pointed at Moriarty] Moriarty: [out of frame] No, you won’t. [in a high-pitched voice, sound of the door closing] (01:26:33)

Clearly, Moriarty gets to have the final say here. But the way Sherlock follows him just until he reaches John and can see Moriarty leaving the door gives the impression that he somehow forced him to leave at gunpoint. The audience does not see Moriarty as the door closes behind him; a shot that was first used in the scene to show Sherlock walking into the pool area is used at that moment again (figure 12). Therefore the viewer can see how Sherlock watches Moriarty leave and still hold the gun in the direction of the door before he then drops it to help John get out of the vest. The shot used at that moment is not one of the establishing shots, though. An establishing shot at that moment would serve the same purpose of reminding the viewer about the space and the placement of characters. This shot not only does that same thing, it also emphasises the action on the left side of the pool and

Sherlock’s response would show his reluctance to correct this unimportant detail, as it does not make 37

therefore the fact that Moriarty leaves the pool on another way that he entered it from. This power play is also very subtly shown when one takes notice of Sherlock’s watch. It is visible in multiple shots, as he uses his left hand to support the right one - which holds the gun. The time it says is 00:45 (figure 13). Although the meeting was set at midnight, Sherlock showed up 45 minutes late19. This could be another attempt to keep the control: by letting his opponent wait for him, he seems in charge of deciding when exactly he wants to see him. But as the end of their conversation shows that the individual cannot take control over unpredictable forces. The attempt to arrange everything - so it will fit in one’s personal or cultural order - can never succeed, because this order is artificial, and therefore the one trying to keep it is actively involved in the further construction of that order, but not making it real. That is why the individual can never take absolute power over its alterity but has to construct differences which are then seen as if they were not a cultural phenomenon. In this scene there are some aspects that make clear that Moriarty and Sherlock are quite alike, but the artificial concept of alterity makes it possible for the identity to differ things it does not want to identify with. Moriarty describes himself like this: “I’m a specialist, you see, like you.” (01:22:52) and Sherlock acknowledges the brilliancy of Moriarty’s work. Sherlock suspects that Moriarty wants to be distracted earlier in the episode. John: So why is he doing this then? Playing this game with you? You think he wants to be caught? Sherlock: I think he wants to be distracted. (00:49:20)

This is just what Sherlock complains about at the beginning of this episode: his brain has to work in order not to rot; he has to be distracted (00:05:00). Their motive for playing this game is the same: boredom. Sherlock recognises this in Moriarty and is repelled by the realisation. He does not, however, ascribe this to himself. He differentiates his own behaviour from Moriarty’s by condemning the latter’s actions as irrational. They are both interested – for different reasons – in crimes: Moriarty is the any difference to the situation what model of the gun he uses. 38

one planning them and Sherlock the one solving their mysteries. Either way, they are passionate about the thrill of intellectual challenges. They also seem to think alike concerning casualties. Earlier in the same episode Sherlock and John had a talk about people that might die because of Moriarty and Sherlock reacts rather indifferently: John: Try and remember there´s a woman who might die. Sherlock: What for? There’s hospitals full of people dying, Doctor. Why don’t you go and cry by their bedside and see what good it does them? (00:17:50)

In this scene now, Moriarty seems to think along similar lines: Sherlock: People have died. Moriarty: That’s what people do! [shouts the last word] (01:24:08)

Certainly, there is still the difference that Moriarty is actually responsible for these deaths, but both he and Sherlock are not willing to care about the emotional side of that matter. Because of the composition of the setting here, there is a clear distinction from Sherlock’s utterance earlier and Moriarty’s. As soon as Moriarty says this, there is a cut to the establishing shot, making clear how his scream echoes in the swimming pool (01:24:12). His words do not only reverberate in the room, but also stay in the viewer’s mind. His exclamation is depicted as rather dramatic and irrational – there is even a non-diegetic bang to emphasise the shocking thing he says; compared to what Sherlock expressed on the same subject earlier, they actually both make the same point – namely that people will die anyway whether or not they interact. Traits the individual does not want to admit to - which it wants to expel from its identity – are attributed to the other. This character trait of cold heartedness, that both Moriarty and Sherlock have, is explained very differently. With respect to Moriarty, it seems to be an aspect of him being irrational and mad, but regarding Sherlock it is an eccentric opinion that he explains rationally while being unempathetic. Moriarty is – not only in this scene but throughout the series – depicted as rather dark. A subtle symbol for this sinister appearance is the tie he wears in this scene: it is patterned with little skulls (cf. Sherlockology: Skull Tie). But also Sherlock is connected with skulls: one is placed on his

19 One could hardly imagine that this was a simple continuity-mistake – the watch is quite clearly depicted in various shots and therefore an error should have been noticed during the filming or editing 39

mantelpiece and one is shown on a piece of art in his living room. Here again, a similarity between Sherlock and Moriarty is presented in different ways. The painting in Sherlock’s apartment is never talked about, but the camera shows it very often and therefore it becomes a decoration that the audience can recognise as belonging to 221 B Baker Street. Sherlock and John talk about the actual skull when they are together in the apartment for the first time and Sherlock refers to it at a later point when it is missing (A Study in Pink). The fact that Sherlock is in connection with this symbol is disposed as an eccentricity. But Moriarty’s choice of this tie is not commented on verbally; the audience is - in their decision what to make of it – not directed via any comment other than the way it is presented by the camera. Moriarty makes clear that his wardrobe is important for him as he points to his suit explaining what brand he is wearing: “Westwood” (figure 14) (01:25:20); at this point the viewer’s attention is deliberately directed to his clothes. But one has to interpret the symbol oneself without relying on other characters’ opinions.

Moriarty threatens Sherlock, just like the abject is an ongoing threat to the order that the subject constructs to make sense of his life: Moriarty: I’ll burn you. I’ll burn the heart out of you. (01:25:41)

The subject can never cast off this threat. This is evident in Moriarty’s reaction to Sherlock’s proclamation to stop him: Sherlock: I will stop you. Moriarty: No, you won´t. (01:24:15)

Even when Sherlock threatens to kill Moriarty, his opponent is not convinced he could go through with that plan: Sherlock: What if I was to shoot you now? Right now? Moriarty: Then you could cherish the look of surprise on my face. Because I’d be surprised Sherlock. Really, I would. And just a teensy bit disappointed. And of course you wouldn’t be able to cherish it for long. (01:26:08)

Moriarty, just as the abject, cannot simply be destroyed. There needs to be that concept of “that which must be repressed in order for symbolic and of the scene. 40

cultural order to be established, but which is ever present“ (Lloyd: 142). He is necessary to exist for Sherlock to construct his identity just as the abject is part of our culture. If there was not some other to differ from, the individual could not identify itself. This scene shows how the individual reacts when he is confronted with his alterity. Sherlock makes himself the subject that tries to gain power over the object Moriarty. He deliberately sees Moriarty as the other, the one he tries to bring to justice – or even worse: kill him. Sherlock does not only want Moriarty to conform to the rules of his reality – his social norms – but even threatens to deal with him according to his own principles by killing him. “Encounters with strangers often breed suspicion, hostile mistrust and denigration“ (Sencidiver 2011: 21) is a fitting description for Sherlock’s first encounter with Moriarty. He feels threatened20, threatens Moriarty to kill him himself and traits that Sherlock and Moriarty both share have a sinister connotation regarding the latter. Quite clearly, identity cannot control its alterity. Moriarty depicts that as he is unpredictable and therefore seems to be in control of their encounter.

“James Moriarty isn’t a man at all.” Sherlock is called as an expert witness to testify against Moriarty When Sherlock sees Moriarty the next time (The Reichenbach Fall 00:15:35), he again clearly tries to empower him. They are in the same court room, but there is no interaction between them, as Sherlock takes the opportunity to objectify Moriarty while he testifies against him21. With describing him Sherlock does not give an objective statement; by ascribing different traits to his other he also gives emphasis to traits that he rejects for himself. When talking about him he gains the power to define him. Sherlock is summoned as an expert. Even though the judge doubts that Sherlock can in fact be an expert because of the short time he knows Moriarty, this gives him the perfect opportunity to objectify Moriarty.

20 He actually is in danger of getting killed. 21 Moriarty is on trial for breaking into the Tower of London, Pentonville Prison and the Bank of England. 41

Barrister: How would you describe this man – his character? Sherlock: First mistake. James Moriarty isn’t a man at all. He’s a spider – a spider in the centre of a web. A criminal web with a thousand threats and he knows precisely how each and every single one of them dances. (00:16:10)

By describing him as an animal Sherlock shows that he considers himself superior. Our culture sees animals as inferior because of they are more a natural than a cultural phenomenon; therefore they are seen as standing outside the “moral community” of mankind (Borkfelt 2011: 137 ff). Sherlock clearly sees Moriarty as immoral. The accused does not conform to the regulation of culture and therefore Sherlock does not believe him to be part of it. When Sherlock gives this opinion on Moriarty, the latter slowly nods his head. He agrees with Sherlock’s description. The fact that he does not dispute anything that Sherlock says about him shows how comfortable he is in the role of alterity. Sherlock also uses this opportunity to show off his intellect, and thereby be superior, by criticising the questions the prosecuting barrister asks him. Sherlock: Can’t do that, you’re leading the witness. He’ll [the defence barrister] object and the judge then upholds. [...] Ask me how. How would I describe him? What opinion have I formed of him? Don’t they teach you this? (00:15:58)

Again, he fails to play by the rules of social norms and behaves quite contrary to how an ordinary person would react whilst in the witness box. He also deduces what kind of people sit on the jury. He wants to show Moriarty and the whole court that he is intellectually superior. But he also admits that he thought they had a “special something” (00:16:38). So he does also see similarities that are able to connect Moriarty to him. Said explained how identity needs to look down on alterity, to justify its superiority. The identity repels attributes which the individual or the culture does not want to be associated with, and ascribes these things to alterity. Sherlock does not only see himself superior on an intellectual level, but also on a moral level. He tries to enforce this claim with his arrogant behaviour regarding the barrister, the judge and also the accused. 42

“Every Fairy Tale needs a good old fashioned villain.” Moriarty visits Sherlock After Moriarty leaves the court acquitted, there is yet another demonstration of Sherlock and Moriarty trying to show who is in control of their relationship. Sherlock knows Moriarty is coming; the scene starts with a montage of him preparing a tea tray – and then he picks up his violin to play (00:21:01). This is to show his visitor, that he has apparently no problem with him invading his personal space by coming to his apartment. He acts as if it was no difficult situation to meet the man he testified against and who tried to kill him and John. The sound of this montage is quite significant. There are short cuts showing the water kettle, the tray and the tea set; the sounds involved are loud and aggressive. Using close ups and extreme close ups of how the kettle is put on, the tray is thrown onto the kitchen counter, how cups, teapot, milk and sugar are arranged on that tray and how the water boils in the kettle, the camera focuses on this mundane activity of preparing tea - showing Sherlock’s mood at the same time. His anger about the verdict on Moriarty is visible, but Sherlock still does not want his opponent to know how much this affects him. He seems to vent his temper on these ordinary objects before he can act to be calm and meet Moriarty. The next shot shows the hallway; the camera slowly zooms in on the door, this is accompanied by the sound of the violin that Sherlock picked up in the shot before. A quit grating sound is audible during the zoom; when the camera shows a close up of the door lock being opened from the other side there is the first non-diegetic sound in this scene: an ominous quiet banging sound is used to illustrate something bad is going to happen or someone bad is going to enter the scene.

43

When Moriarty enters the hallway the camera does not show him, but only the shadow of the intruder (figure 15). A close up of his feet follows, as the camera moves up the stairs with them. Steven Moffat describes the moments leading to their encounter as such: We know Moriarty is coming. And Sherlock Holmes is waiting for Moriarty and plays his violin. And he plays his violin, while we see this shadowy figure come through this hallway. We see Moriarty ascend the stairs and then suddenly the violin stops, because Holmes has heard Moriarty approaching. So Moriarty stops, realising he’s rumbled. So the two men had their first stand-off, and they haven’t even been in the same room yet. And then - just to show that he’s cool - Holmes starts playing the violin again, and then Moriarty - to show that he’s cool - carries on up the stairs. (Moffat 2012 01:27)

The hallway is rather dark. When Moriarty ascends the stairs there is only one source of light, the window on the landing, and even that is half concealed because of the stairs. Also, the viewer only sees his back or his feet; Moriarty is not clearly shown – and does not have to be – because the viewer knows to expect him. Sherlock only stops playing the violin when Moriarty opens the door to the apartment and it makes a creaking sound. Sherlock does not need to turn around, though, since he expects Moriarty and wants him to know that. This again is a display of power. Each of them want to be the one in control, the one surprising the other. Neither of them would confess to be disturbed by the action of the other. Here the camera does not show Moriarty clearly, yet. Sherlock in the foreground is in focus; Moriarty in the back is blurred. This shallow focus allows the director to direct the viewer’s attention to certain things; here the audience is supposed to focus on Sherlock and his behaviour. The absence of music now gives emphasis to Sherlock’s calm, soft voice: “Most people knock.” The same non-diegetic quit banging sound that was used before underlines that something or someone unpredictable enters the scene that Sherlock sees as a threat. When Sherlock offers Moriarty to take a seat in the chair left to the fireplace by pointing to it with his violin bow, his guest deliberately takes the chair to the right – the one which Sherlock typically uses - which has not been offered to him (figure 16; 00:22:07). Considering his look, Sherlock clearly disapproves of this, but does not say anything. He fails in controlling the setting of the following conversation; still he would not admit this failure to 44

Moriarty. The setting of this scene is again – just like it has been with the swimming pool – ordinary. The setting is quite cosy, with warm colours (figure 17). The other manages to enter the individual’s life in everyday situations. Before Sherlock prepares for Moriarty to come to his place, he is even wearing a dressing gown. This makes Moriarty even more of an intruder into Sherlock’s privacy. Moriarty does not only get into Sherlock’s home; he also behaves as if he could control what happens here. He enters the apartment uninvited, only asks “May I?” when it is too late and in a tone that suggest a rhetorical question and that he does not need to ask whether or not he may enter. He then takes an apple without asking and takes the seat he was not offered and starts to eat the apple. This is not the behaviour of a normal guest in one’s home, but a demonstration of the power he holds over Sherlock. Although a dialogue follows and the score starts to sound when Moriarty takes a seat, the clattering when Sherlock pours the tea is still noticeable. The situation is again presented as an every day one, but the sinister music ensures the audience that it is in fact a threatening situation. Another allusion to the danger Sherlock is in is the sound of a siren passing by when Sherlock asks: “Is that how you’re gonna do it? Burn me?” after Moriarty explained how he managed to be acquitted (00:23:19). Moriarty directly talks about himself as a stereotype: “Every fairy tale needs a good old-fashioned villain” (00:22:37). He deliberately takes on the part as Sherlock’s opponent. By putting himself in the position of the villain and stating that Sherlock is on the other side he also accredits the role of the hero to Sherlock: “You’re on the side of the angels” (00:22:51). Seeing Moriarty as his alterity, Sherlock – in order to differ from him – has to play this role of the hero although that might not be what he himself wants to do. In The Great Game he says: “Heroes don’t exist, and if they did, I wouldn’t be one of them” (00:50:14). This was before he has been confronted with his other, though. Now - after he has had contact with Moriarty – he has to identify with this role so that he can be different from the villain. Moriarty seems to be aware of the artificial construction - of the fictional characteristics - of their reality. He puts their story in connection with fairy tales, where there are fixed stereotypes - like the hero and the villain. He 45

accepts this fictionality, and therefore is able to construct parts of it on his own. Sherlock on the other hand does not want to conform to the role ascriptions that come with being the hero. He tries to resist the impact Moriarty has on his identity construction. When Sherlock does not want to commit himself to this role, Moriarty refuses any possibility of a retreat: Sherlock: I never liked riddles. Moriarty: Learn to. (00:26:04)

Sherlock clearly is lying about his fondness of riddles in order to be able to retreat from his enemy. He would not be interested in working as a consultant and solving cases if he did not like riddles. Sherlock tries to keep his distance from Moriarty and his promise to destroy him, but Moriarty will not let him. Sherlock constantly tries to avoid Moriarty’s mischief: Moriarty: How hard do you find it, having to say “I don’t know”? Sherlock: I don’t know. (00:23:51)

The depiction of both of them, sitting opposite each other, is that of opponents. One source of the lights comes from the right – from behind Moriarty when he is sitting – and others come from lamps which are positioned next to the window or on the other side of the room – from behind the chair Sherlock is sitting in. Additionaly, there is light coming from the kitchen behind Sherlock. This setting allows an interesting depiction of the contrast of Sherlock and Moriarty. Because the latter is illuminated from behind, his face is rather in the dark when the camera shows him from the front. Only when the camera shows him from the side or a higher angle, the darkness is not as striking. Sherlock on the other hand is illuminated from the front and therefore well lit (figure 18). This positioning of the light makes even their features opposed to each other. Sherlock’s eyes are of a light greenish grey colour that is very similar to the colour of Moriarty’s suit; then again Moriarty’s eyes – which have a rather dark brown colour – appear almost black, much like Sherlock’s suit, because of the lighting. Even visually they meet as opponents here. (figures 18)

46

Although they are juxtaposed, they meet as equals: Moriarty: You need me, or you’re nothing. Because we’re just alike, you and I. Except you’re boring. You’re on the side of the angels. (00:22:43)

Sherlock does not yet respond to that. He does not want to realise the impact Moriarty has on him and he certainly would not want Moriarty to know if he did. The scene shows a variety of shot-reaction-shots (figures 20). Different angles manage to focus the attention of the audience on varying details. One of them is a medium close up of either Moriarty or Sherlock from the front, one is a close up of them from their sides and another one is shot from a higher angle and therefore shows not only them but also their surroundings. The shots that show them from the front allow the audience to notice the different lighting. The close ups that show their profile emphasises their relation to each other: they are opponents and this is their direct confrontation without any distraction. Sherlock focuses on the conversation without the fear of being killed any moment or having the pressure of a testimony. This is the first time he meets Moriarty while no one else is present and he has the chance to observe and study his rival. The shot that is taken from a higher angle shows props that are arranged surrounding their chairs. Those are a subtle characterisation of the figure they are depicted with. Next to Sherlock’s chair there is a stack of newspapers on which he earlier placed down his violin. A TV screen is placed right next to the violin (figure 19). The musical instrument is depicted being used by Sherlock throughout the series; when Sherlock and John meet for the first time he even mentions the violin when he talks about himself:

Sherlock: How do you feel about the violin? Watson: Sorry, what? Sherlock: I play the violin while I’m thinking. Sometimes I don’t talk for days. Would that bother you? Potential flatmates should know the worst of each other. (A Study in Pink 00:10:20)

He himself sees the violin as something that belongs to him, and so does the audience, too. Considering the same sort of setting for the reaction shot of Moriarty, one might expect a prop aiding a similar characterisation of him. There are things lying in the respective place in the background, but they are not recognisable (figure 19); they might be books or boxes, but they are not 47

distinctive enough to draw inferences from them about Moriarty. The audience recognises the violin behind Sherlock because they know it, but regarding Moriarty they cannot rely on props helping them to characterise him. This helps to encourage the identification with Sherlock, as the viewer has the assumption that s/he knows Sherlock well enough to relate objects to him. S/he cannot do the same thing with the figure of Moriarty. Small details let the viewer share Sherlock’s perspective. Rack focus is used to show the way Sherlock observes things and at the same time to direct the viewer’s attention to those things. After Moriarty places his cup on the saucer, he puts his left hand onto his knee to start to tap his fingers. The camera first focuses on the action in the foreground, namely the placing of the cup on the saucer, and then the focus shifts to his hand in the background (figure 21). The following shot is a reaction shot of Sherlock, who lowers his eyes to observe this tapping (00:23:40) - which later is explained to be the representation of a computer code that does not actually exist. Shortly before Moriarty leaves the viewer sees him in an over shoulder shot with Sherlock’s face in the foreground – out of focus. The viewer’s attention is therefore solely directed to Moriarty’s face; only when he leaves the frame the camera focuses on Sherlock who follows Moriarty with his eyes – the viewer than can focus on Sherlock. Another technique that makes the viewer identify with Sherlock is the way Moriarty is shown when he talks about the fall22 he owes Sherlock (00:25:48). He starts to talk and is shown in a close-up from the front, thereupon there is a cut showing him from a higher angle – with him imitating the sound of a fall – with his voice-over talking about it, followed by a cut back to the close-up from the front (figures 22). This depiction makes clear that both of these actions – the talking and the imitation – belong together and therefore cannot be separated and shown in chronological order. They

22 There are three biblical references in this scene. The apple that Moriarty takes allures to the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Moriarty refers to angels when he makes clear that he and Sherlock are opponents and he talks about owing Sherlock a fall, which refers to the fall of angels. Moriarty thereby places himself above Sherlock; Sherlock is the one that will fall according to Moriarty’s plan. This resounds again at a later point in the episode when Sherlock acknowledges his assigned status of an angel:”If you want to shake hands with me in hell, I will gladly join you. I may be on the side of the angels but don’t think for one second that I am one of them” (01:15:40). Thereby here not only a reference to to the fallen angels is made but also to Lucifer and hell itself. 48

are shown at the same time, because Sherlock – just as the viewer – apprehends them as connected. Sherlock and Moriarty meet as equals in this scene, they are clearly depicted as such. The power that Moriarty has over Sherlock, namely that he is the driving force for Sherlock’s construction of his identity, is not yet recognised by Sherlock. He still thinks that he can escape the attributes of being the hero. Moriarty is aware of his importance as the Other to Sherlock, as he claims to be the villain of his construction himself. Sherlock, on the other hand, is not yet willing to understand the impact Moriarty has on him and tries to negate Moriarty’s construction of their reality.

“There is no Moriarty – there never has been.” Moriarty claims Sherlock a fraud Sherlock’s credibility is seriously harmed when Moriarty’s plan for his fall turns out to begin with the destruction of his reputation (The Reichenbach Fall 00:44:22). When Sergeant Donovan voices her view on Sherlock23 and how he might be responsible for the kidnapping of two children - in order to then find them and be the hero who saved them – even Lestrade starts to see that her doubts might hold some truth. Donovan and Anderson – who both dislike Sherlock and do not trust him – persuade Lestrade of arresting Sherlock to question him. As Sherlock takes a cab home, there are parallel cuts to his encounter with Moriarty – who presents himself on the screen in the taxi – and the conversation the police officers have. Crosscutting lets the audience link the story Moriarty is telling to Sherlock’s reality:

Moriarty: Are you ready for the story? This is the story of Sir Boast-a-lot. [cut to Donovan and Lestrade] Donovan: A footprint – that’s all he has. A footprint Lestrade: Well, you know what he is like. CSI Baker Street. Donovan: Well, our boys couldn’t have done it. Lestrade: That’s why we need him: he’s better. Donovan: That’s one explanation. Lestrade: And what’s the other? [cut to cab] Moriarty: Sir Boast-a-lot was the bravest and cleverest knight at the round table. But soon, the other knights began to grow tired of his stories about how brave he was and how many dragons he’d slain. And so they began to wonder: are Sir Boast-a-lot’s stories even true? Donovan: [voice over] Only he could have found that evidence. Moriarty: Oh no.

23 She already mentioned her dislike of Sherlock to John when she first met him in A Study in Pink: “One day we’ll stand around a body and Sherlock Holmes will be the one that put it there.” (00:32:17) 49

Donovan: [voice over] And then the girl screams her head off when she sees him – [cut to Donovan and Lestrade] - a man she has never seen before. Unless she had seen him before. Lestrade: What’s your point? Donovan: You know what my point is – you just don’t want to think about it. Moriarty: [voice over] So, one of the knights went to King Arthur and said: - [cut to cab] - “I don’t believe Sir Boast-a-lot’s stories. He’s just a big old liar who makes things up to make himself look good [cut to Donovan, Anderson and Lestrade; conversation at first muted]. Lestrade: You’re not seriously suggesting he’s involved? Anderson: I think we have to entertain the possibility. Moriarty: [voice over]And then, even the king [close up Lestrade] began to wonder. [cut to Moriarty] But that wasn’t the end of Sir Boast-a-lot’s problem. No, that wasn’t the final problem. The end.

The depiction of Moriarty’s storytelling perfectly links proceedings in Sherlock’s reality with the fictional events Moriarty uses as representation of them. The borders between reality and fiction are manipulated; the fact that our reality can be constructed just as a fairy tale is emphasised24. The crosscutting in this scene illustrates the parallels of constructing a fiction and constructing a reality. When Moriarty has finished telling the story there even is a closing curtain and he closes the book he holds. This, and the fact that Moriarty announces this to be a story, further gives evidence that he is the one controlling this construction. The story he tells is clearly marked as fiction. Just as he was the one that attributed the role of the villain to himself and the role of the hero to Sherlock before, he now compares Sherlock to a fictional figure again. Sherlock does not want to conform to that and he also does not abandon his construct of reality for Moriarty’s construct. The realisation of what Moriarty is about to do – destroying his reputation and therefore the part of his identity that he relies on most – makes him furious. When he gets out of the cab to confront the driver about the video he just saw and sees Moriarty he is not able to react fast enough, though. When Sherlock is again confronted with Moriarty a short time after this encounter, he realises the great impact Moriarty has on him by being his

24 A technique that is used throughout the series to emphasise its fictionality is the framing of a character. On numerous occasions the camera shows a figure framed by windows or doors. This reminds the audience to not forget that they are not watching an immediate presentation but a 50

alterity. When reporter Kitty Riley threatens to reveal “the truth about Sherlock Holmes” (The Reichenbach Fall 00:58:32) Sherlock seems to be mad about the fact how easy it is for Moriarty to create a version of reality – by making Sherlock a fraud and himself an actor who was hired by the detective. When Moriarty the criminal ceases to exist, Sherlock the great detective would do so, too.

“I am you. Prepared to do anything.” Sherlock and Moriarty meet for the last time The scene that shows the final encounter of Sherlock and Moriarty takes place on the rooftop of St. Bartholomew’s Hospital (The Reichenbach Fall 01:08:22). Again Sherlock is the one to choose the place. At first, the establishing shot shows Moriarty in the centre of the frame, sitting on a wall at the edge of the rooftop. The camera moves to the right until there is a door opening at the right end of the frame. A wide-angle lens is used for this shot; therefore Moriarty is the focal point of the exposition – until the camera moves away from him. With that movement, Moriarty - who is then slightly out of frame – and Sherlock – who is still covered by the door he opens – are shown at either side of the frame. The rooftop is centred then: the importance for the scene’s location is emphasised. During this establishing shot there is Staying Alive playing as the non-diegetic music. With the next cut the camera follows Sherlock; just like in their first meeting the viewer sees the shot as if s/he was entering the location with Sherlock – the audience is encouraged to focus on him. The music becomes diegetic at this point. The use of the change between diegetic and non-diegetic music regarding Moriarty has already been discussed in 3.1. Here, Moriarty actually comments on the meaning of the song: “Staying alive – it’s so boring, isn’t it?” (01:08:55). He relates the music to their situation; his question could encourage Sherlock to do the same, but he does not reply to it. During their conversation, Sherlock comes to realise that he cannot completely understand Moriarty. He thinks he has him figured out and still hopes to resolve the situation Moriarty has put him in - with lying about Sherlock being a fraud and Moriarty being an assumed actor that he hired. But it turns out that Moriarty once more misled Sherlock regarding the representation. But this technique also objectifies the presented and therefore the audience can identify 51

computer key he apparently can use to hack into any system. Here Sherlock believes to have the answer for the problem: he knows the computer code himself, so he could use it to proof his story and unmask Moriarty as a criminal. It turns out that this key does not exist; Moriarty only used the idea of this powerful code to get Sherlock’s attention. There is a similar revelation in The Great Game, when it turns out that Moriarty used the Bruce-Partington program as part of his plan to get Sherlock to meet with him (01:24:37). Now, Sherlock is bewildered about the non-existence of the computer code, just as he was when he found out Moriarty did not need him to obtain the plans earlier. Sherlock then again misjudged Moriarty’s reasons for his behaviour: the criminal did not want him to bring the Bruce-Partington programme and he was not trying to advertise a valuable computer key either25. Sherlock might think he understands Moriarty, but he can never be sure to. Although Sherlock was wrong about the code,26 he still manages to understand Moriarty’s motivation. Moriarty states it himself at the beginning of their conversation: Moriarty: All my life I’ve been searching for distractions. And you were the best distraction. And now I don’t even have you – because I’ve beaten you. (01:09:04)

So Moriarty confirms Sherlock’s assumption from earlier (The Great Game 00:49:20) that both of them have the same motivation for their involvement in crime – however different this involvement might be. Their motivation is not to be bored. In many ways this scene, once again, depicts how similar Sherlock and Moriarty are. They are both depicted as confident that they will be the winner in contrast or in alignment to it.(figure 23) 25 Moriarty states that it was his intention to advertise this code by using it to break into the Tower of London, Pentonville Prison and the Bank of England earlier in the episode when he comes to visit Sherlock in his apartment. 26 To be fair, the elucidation of this scene has not taken place yet. As the viewer knows in hindsight, Sherlock fakes his suicide; therefore he has to have planned what happens on the rooftop. It is likely that he knew about Moriarty’s diversionary tactic regarding the computer key and acts the way he does because he wants his own plan to work: Moriarty has to be dead in order for him to be able to fake his death. Sherlock knows that Moriarty does not work alone and therefore can deduce that there will be others endangering his and his friends’ lives. This would mean that Sherlock does in fact understand Moriarty and can predict his behaviour. Another explanation could also be that Sherlock tries to do anything to avoid faking his death altogether and fails because he cannot predict Moriarty’s actions. The first episode of the next season (which will be broadcasted in January 2014) will surely answer some questions. Whether this ending of their relationship went according to Sherlock’s plan or not, does make no difference to the fact that he does have to fake his own death and thereby it is impossible for him to continue his life and identify himself as Sherlock Holmes – at least for a while. 52

of their encounter – or at least they act confident. As Moriarty teases Sherlock with his ability to destroy his reputation he circles Sherlock while they talk (01:09:35). This is an effective way to symbolise how Sherlock is trapped and at Moriarty’s mercy. In the same way, Sherlock circles Moriarty when he thinks he can make him stop the order to kill his friends (01:15:10). Not only do they move in the same way at these occasions, they also use the same method to irritate the other. Moriarty – who changes his pattern of speech quite often – says “Just trying to have some fun” in an American accent (01:09:48); Sherlock does something similar when he tries to convince Moriarty that he holds the upper hand in uttering “I’ve got you” in a children’s sing song (01:15:15). Both of these remarks could very well be references to pop songs – Girls Just Want to Have Fun (Lauper 1983) and I Got You Babe (Sonny&Cher 1965). Here the references do not suggest that these lines keep their original meaning – such as the other music that does not belong to the especially composed music does – but Sherlock and Moriarty give new meaning to these quotes; Moriarty is not refering to a fun night out and Sherlock anounces his affection for Moriarty. However, the similar change of the speech pattern of both Sherlock and Moriarty suggest that they have the same insolent attitude regarding their opponent by mocking him. It is nothing unexpected for Moriarty to change his behaviour or speech pattern during a conversation; though it is unforseen regarding Sherlock. Sherlock here adopts one of Moriarty’s traits and it seems as if it therefore shows how Sherlock is starting to realise that he does not differ from Moriarty as much as he wants to, but is likely to show the same behaviour and traits. Sherlock’s assumption that he can “kill Rich Brook and bring back Moriarty” shows the expectation of the individual that it can dominate and determine its alterity in whatever way it wishes to. This is proven to be wrong by Moriarty; he shows that there exists no possibility for Sherlock to do such a thing. There is no way for Sherlock to have power over Moriarty; the code that he wants to use in order to do that never existed. As Sherlock tries to scare Moriarty so that he would call off the killings of John, Mrs Hudson and Lestrade, he admits to be the same as him. This is a 53

realisation that his other is in fact not so different from him, but what he associates with his alterity is actually a part of him27. Sherlock: I am you. Prepared to do anything – prepared to burn. Prepared to do what ordinary people won’t do. [...] Moriarty: [...] You’re ordinary. You’re on the side of the angels. Sherlock: I may be on the side of the angels, but don’t think for one second, that I’m one of them. Moriarty: No. You’re not. I see. You’re not ordinary. No. You’re me. (01:15:35)

This scene shows that the individual can never be quite sure to understand its other. Although one might think to do so, alterity still remains something that cannot be totally comprehended. Moriarty is a representation of an alterity, of something abject, but he cannot be more than that representation: the concept of alterity is not something that can be grasped. Alterity needs to be depicted as an object, as it is done here with Moriarty, in order to work. And even if that representation ceases to exist, the concept itself is still haunting the individual. To hold alterity at bay does not destroy the imminense of alterity - Sherlock and his friends would still die even if Moriarty was not around. Moriarty himself states that: Moriarty: You can have me arrested. You can torture me. You can do anything you like with me. But nothing’s gonna prevent them [the killers Moriarty hired to kill John, Mrs Hudson and Lestrade] from pulling the trigger. Your only three friends in the world will die. Unless- Sherlock: Unless I kill myself – complete your story. (01:13:26)

Even if Moriarty was not a threat anymore, his threat to destroy Sherlock would still be real. Here again are references to Moriarty’s construction of truth. Firstly, Moriarty speaks about what he wants people to believe after his plan succeeds: Moriarty: “Genius detective proved to be a fraud. I read it in the newspaper, so it must be true. I love newspapers.” Fairy tales – and pretty grim ones, too. (01:11:40)

His plan to destroy Sherlock and his reputation includes that everybody will believe this construct is real. Even Sherlock refers to this as his story (above). Moriarty knows about the constructed character of this story and is again referring to fairy tales. Sherlock on the other hand does now see this, too - but still only in relation to the lie Moriarty is telling about him. He still

27 To convince Moriarty that he thinks like this could also be part of his plan to get Moriarty to kill 54

views his reality as the real one, in contrast to the constructed reality Moriarty created with his lie. After he learned about Moriarty’s plan he even said to John: He’s got my whole life story. That’s what you do, you sell a big lie and then you wrap it up in the truth to make it more palatable. (01:01:40)

He does not see his reality as a construct and is furious when Moriarty dares to change it. Moriarty is aware of the fictionality: he refers to Sherlock’s suicide as the final act (01:11:25) and calls people that are walking in the street Sherlock’s audience (01:13:51). This relating to a performance again exposes his acceptation of reality as a construct. In the scene there are various elements that make the viewer identify with Sherlock, and also with John at the end of the scene. First the environment is lit by sunlight; there are some clouds, but at the beginning one can still see parts of the blue sky. The lighting changes towards the end of the scene – as the weather changes – and thus the mood becomes a different one as well. In the establishing shot grey colours of the buildings already dominate, yet the sun still shines on Moriarty and Sherlock as well as their surrounding and the objects in the background. There are even lens flares at some points (figure 24). But as soon as Sherlock and John talk on the phone at the end of the scene, the tone becomes grey and almost devoid of colour. This change in the lighting allows the audience to identify with both Sherlock and John by depicting their gloomy mood (figures 25). Other techniques which are used for this identification in the scene are canting of the camera, change of focus and change of speed. The camera cants for a first time here when Sherlock stands at the edge of the roof top because Moriarty forces him to kill himself (figure 26). It symbolises the situation being out of control for Sherlock. As there is then a close up of Sherlock following, a version of the opening title is connected with Sherlock’s determination to make Moriarty stop the order for killing his friends. When this technique of the camera showing a canted level is used next, it again becomes apparent how limited Sherlock is to control this situation and how disoriented he is. The fast camera movement circling Sherlock paired with the canting emphasise the shocking outcome of Moriarty’s death for Sherlock. As his thoughts are raging in his head, the camera movement and position depict this emotion of himself. 55

shock and make the viewer identify with Sherlock (figures 27). The music full of suspense supports this (Prepared To Do Anything 01:54). There are parallel cuts showing Mrs Hudson, John and Lestrade as they are being watched by the killers Moriarty hired. They show the reason for Sherlock’s agitation. Although the music is quite loud, one is still able to hear Sherlock’s rapid breathing as well as his groans when he looks at Moriarty’s body. As the music stops with a climax, the audience is left alone with the sound of Sherlock’s breathing while looking at his back for a short moment. This almost panting emphasises the shock he is in and encourages the viewer to feel with him. When Sherlock stands on the wall the camera shows his right foot in the foreground, while there is a taxi arriving down in the street in the blurry background; the focus then changes to John in the street. This rack focus lets the viewer share Sherlock’s perspective as he sees John arriving. Regarding John’s perspective this is also used: first Sherlock is depicted out of focus when the camera shows John – and as soon as John sees Sherlock the focus changes (figures 28). During their conversation on the phone, there are different techniques showing John. When he is moving, a shaky camera moves with him and shows close ups; another shot is a long shot from Sherlock’s perspective showing John down in the street. A small sound detail directs the viewer’s attention to Sherlock crying when he lies to John about having researched him before they met for the first time: as a tear drops down his chin, there is the very quiet sound of a drip (01:20:10). Even the weather illustrates the tone of the scene and Sherlock and Johns’ emotions. Just as Sherlock throws away the phone and then jumps down the building, it starts to rain (figure 29). The following shots again use techniques to let the audience identify with John emotionally. As he makes his way to the spot where Sherlock has landed, the camera follows him and depicts him in a way that resemble his emotions: the focus changes, the camera moves around a lot and there are parallel cuts that show Sherlock on the pavement which seem to show John’s perspective. The sound is muffled as if to represent how numb John feels. When he is hit by a bike on his way to Sherlock the focus as well as the speed changes to simulate his confusion and suffering – John is out of focus and the movement is slowed down (figures 30). This is accompanied by a sound that expresses John’s ringing in his ear. 56

Interestingly, the perspective of the camera changes when he arrives at the group of people surrounding Sherlock. It seems to be the perspective of an onlooker witnessing the situation. The shaky camera moves fast between John and Sherlock, just as a witness would observe the situation. The camera focuses on John or his actions when he says something or does something, like checking Sherlock’s pulse. There even is movement very close to the camera when paramedics arrive with a stretcher to get Sherlock’s body – just as if the audience is experiencing the perspective of someone who is present among the crowd. Therewith, the perspective changes at that moment from the one of a well known character to a stranger’s; this allows the viewer to take a step back from identifying with John. Other shots that encourage this distancing are the bird’s eye view of Sherlock getting carried off and the shot of John depicting him as he is still put in the crosshairs by his killers – the camera then moves away from John just as the killer withdraws from the scene (figure 31).

4 Conclusion Sherlock clearly needs Moriarty as his alterity in order to construct his identity. This is evident in Sherlock not being able to keep his constructed identity once Moriarty – as the presentation of the concept alterity – does not exist any longer. The constructs that our culture creates are necessary for the individual to find orientation in it. The constructs of identity and alterity are artificial concepts that our culture teaches us to both adopt and recognise - which the individual then takes for granted in order to form its identity (cf. Said 1994). They are just as much a construct as our culture - our reality - is. Negating these concepts would result in the inability to live in our culture (cf. Nietzsche 1964) If the individual could take a step back from culture and see it as an object – just as the individual needs to objectify itself in order to identify itself according to Lacan (cf. 1973) - it would be possible to see its construction. But as every individual is born into this concept and has no possibility to take that step back, it can never observe its culture objectively. The use of fiction enables the creators of the work to represent culture, therefore to make it an object that can be looked at. The reader/viewer of this fiction is then able to objectify its concept of culture without actually standing 57

outside of it. This objectification makes it possible for the individual to evaluate and talk about his own culture. Some fiction tends to hide its representational character and therefore the viewer cannot discuss the presented concepts in the way s/he is able to when fiction emphasises its constructed character. When fiction shows its artificiality, the audience are encouraged to deal with the presented concepts. These could then be reinforced on the one hand, or they can be criticised on the other hand. To depict something as realistic as possible leads the audience to believe it is true, but to show it in a way that makes the audience realise the construction leads to an encouraged discussion about the representation as well as the represented (cf. Brecht 1957). The audience have therefore the opportunity to criticise concepts and understand their reality. Sherlock uses different techniques to enable the audience to identify with the protagonists on the one side, but on the other side there are also techniques which alienate the audience and therewith encourage questioning other concepts. As Sherlock and John are depicted in a way that lets the audience share their perspective and identify with them, the artificiality of the concept of identity is not emphasised as much as the artificiality of the concept of alterity. The audience is constrained to discuss alterity and its impact on identity formation, but none the less identity is still depicted as something that actually does exist in a real context and is not as artificial as alterity. Sherlock emphasises the possibility of identity formation being artificial, but still assumes that the individual can make a choice of how its identity should be constructed. Alterity does have a great impact on the formation of identity, but in the end of the second series it is shown, that identity can regulate that influence if the individual tries hard enough. The problem of this two-edged representation is that of the audience manipulated into criticising the concept of alterity, while the concept of identity is mostly left to be taken as true. At the end of series two the audience is left with the knowledge that, although representations of alterity can be conquered, alterity still haunts the individual. In the series, Sherlock is forced to destroy his own concept of his identity by faking his suicide and leaving his friends to believe he was a fraud. However, the reason for this decision is the possibility of reversing this situation. Sherlock had help with his plan and those who know that he still is 58

alive and that he still is the individual he always claims to be – a clever detective – can also help him to restore his identity. For the coming season it would be reasonable to create a new representation of alterity, because Sherlock will have to construct another alterity than Moriarty to be able to further construct his identity as the one of detective Sherlock Holmes. Moffat already teased the fans of the TV series with his statement that there will be “an even more terrifying nemesis“ (Moffat 2013) to look out for.

59

5 German summary Die bekannten Sherlock Holmes Geschichten von Sir Arthur Connan Doyle bilden die Grundlage der 2010 von BBC ausgestrahlten Serie Sherlock. Mark Gatiss und Steven Moffat erschufen mit ihrer Adaption dieser klassischen Detektivgeschichten einen modernen Sherlock Holmes in einem modernen London, der seine beeindrucken deduktiven Ermittlungsfähigkeiten zur Lösung zahlreicher komplizierter Fälle einsetzt. Was diese Adaption von zahlreichen vorangegangen unterscheidet, sind jedoch nicht nur die optischen Veränderungen, die Geschichten in einem London des 21. Jahrhunderts spielen zu lassen, sondern vor allem die Wichtigkeit und Gewichtigkeit, die Sherlocks Erzfeind Moriarty zugedacht wird. Die hier vorgelegte Masterarbeit befasst sich mit der Rolle Moriartys als Alterität Sherlocks und der damit einhergehenden Möglichkeit Sherlocks Identititätsstiftungsprozess zu illustrieren und voranzutreiben sowie mit der Frage inwieweit Moriarty wirklich eine Alteriät als solche darstellt. Als theoretische Grundlage für die Analyse von Identitäten und Alteritäten dienen verschiedene Konzepte von Jaques Lacan, Sigmund Freud, Julia Kristeva, Edward Said sowie Jürgen Habermass. Identität und Alterität sind kulturell bedingt und stellen eine notwendige Orientierungshilfe des Individuums dar. Inwieweit ein jedes Individuum diese Orientierungshilfe erkennt und annimmt ist kulturell geprägt und bildet die Grundlage jeglicher Konstruktion von Realität. Da Kultur nicht von innen heraus betrachtet und die Prozesse dieser nicht beurteilt werden können, sich das Individuum aber auch nicht aus ebendieser herauszulösen vermag, bedarf er der Hilfe literarischer Texte und Formen diesen Einblick zu gewähren und das Erkennen von solchen Konzepten zu erlauben. Wenn die Literatur einen solchen Einblick erlaubt, wird der Leser – oder in diesem Falle Zuschauer – angeregt sich kritisch mit dem ihm präsentierten Konstrukt von Realität und Identität/Alterität auseinanderzusetzen. Die Zuschauer haben die Möglichkeit diese unterschiedlichen Konzepte in Sherlock durch verschieden filmische und erzählerische Techniken nicht nur wahrzunehmen sondern auch kritisch zu hinterfragen. Sherlock nutz eine Vielzahlt verschiedener Techniken, die den Zuschauer dazu veranlassen sich mit Sherlock zu identifizieren, aber schafft auch genügend Raum sich von ihm zu distanzieren – wobei letzteres als Anstiftung zum kritischen 60

Hinterfragen der oben erwähnten gesellschaftlichen Konstrukte verstanden werden kann. Sherlock eröffnet die Möglichkeit diesen Prozess der Identifikationsbildung als etwas Künstliches zu betrachten, unterstellt aber auch, dass das Individuum selbst die Möglichkeit besitzt eigenständige Entscheidungen zu treffen wie seine eigene Identität gebildet werden kann. Die Alterität hat einen großen Einfluss wie diese Identität zu bilden ist. Zum Ende der zweiten Staffel werden die Zuschauer mit dem Wissen, dass, obwohl die Repräsentation der Alterität bezwungen werden kann, jene Alterität dennoch einen Schatten wirf. Indem er sich vom Dach in den Tod stürzt ist Sherlock dazu gezwungen sein eigenes Konzept von Identität zu zerstören.

61

6 Bibliography

A Study in Pink. By Steven Moffat. Dir. Paul McGuigan. Perf. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Prod. Sue Vertue. 2010. DVD.

The Blind Banker. By Steve Thompson. Dir. Euros Lyn. Perf. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Prod. Sue Vertue. 2010. DVD.

The Great Game. By Mark Gatiss. Dir. Paul McGuigan. Perf. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Prod. Sue Vertue. 2010. DVD.

A Scandal in Belgravia. By Steven Moffat. Dir. Paul McGuigan. Perf. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Prod. Sue Vertue. 2012. DVD.

The Hounds of Baskerville. By Mark Gatiss. Dir. Paul McGuigan. Perf. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Prod. Sue Vertue. 2012. DVD.

The Reichenbach Fall. By Steve Thompson. Dir. Toby Haynes. Perf. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman. Prod. Sue Vertue. 2012. DVD.

A Clockwork Orange. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Perf. Malcolm McDowell. 1971. DVD.

Adams, Guy. Sherlock - The Casebook. London: BBC Books, 2012.

Andrew, Dudley. Adaptation. Ed. James Narmore. London: The Athlone Press, 2000.

Arnold, David and Michael Price. “Opening Titles.” Sherlock (Soundtrack from the TV series). 2012. CD.

Arnold, David and Michael Price. “Prepared To Do Anything.” Sherlock - Series 2 (Soundtrack from the TV-Series. 2012. CD.

Arnold, David and Michael Price. “The Game Is On.” Sherlock (Soundtrack from the TV series). 2012. CD.

Arnold, David and Michael Price. “War.” Sherlock (Soundtrack from the TV series). 2012. CD.

Baudrillard, Jean. Die Intelligenz des Bösen. Ed. Peter Engelmann. Wien: Passagen-Verlag, 2006.

Becker, Jens Peter. Sherlock Holmes und Co.: Essays zur Englischen und Amerikanischen Detektivliteratur. München: Goldmann, 1975.

BeeGees. “Staying Alive.” Number Ones. 2004. CD.

Bordwell, David and Kristin Thompson. Film Art: An Introduction. New York: McGraw Hill, 2001. 62

Bordwell, David. Narration in the Fiction Film. London: Methuen, 1985.

Borkfelt, Sune. “Non-human Otherness: Animals as Others and Devices for Othering.” Sencidiver, Susan Yi et al. Otherness: A Multilateral Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2011. 137-154.

Brecht, Bertold. Schriften zum Theater: Über eine nicht-aristotelische Dramatik. Ed. Siegfried Unseld. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1957.

Burton, Graeme. More than meets the Eye: An Introduction to Media Studies. London: Arnold, 2002.

Castle. Dir. created by Andrew W. Marlowe. Perf. Nathan Fillion and Stana Katic. 2009-.

Cremonini, Andreas. “Sternstunde Philosophie: Lacan verstehen. Andreas Cremonini und Peter Widmer über den französischen Psychoanalytiker Jacques Lacan” with Michael Pfister. Sternstunde Philosophie. SRF. 28 März 2010.

Doyle, Arthur Conan. The Annotated Sherlock Holmes. Ed. William S. Baring-Gould. Vol. I. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1967. II vols.

—. The Annotated Sherlock Holmes. Ed. William S. Baring-Gould. Vol. II. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, 1967. II vols.

Eder, Jens. Die Figur im Film: Grundlagen der Figurenanalyse. Marburg: Schüren, 2008.

Egloff, Gerd. Detektivroman und englisches Bürgertum: Konstruktionsschema und Gesellschaftsbild bei Agatha Christie. Düsseldorf: Bertelsmann, 1974.

Elementary. Dir. created by Robert Doherty. Perf. Jonny Lee Miller and Lucy Liu. 2012-.

Freud, Sigmund. The Freud Reader. Ed. Paul Gay. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1989.

—. “The Uncanny.” 1919. Essay.

Fuhrmann, Manfred. “Persona, ein römischer Rollenbegriff.” Marquard, Odo and Karlheinz Stierle. Poetik und Hermeneutik VIII: Identität. München: Fink, 1979. 83-107.

Gatiss, Mark. Bonus Material Series One BBC. 2010.

Habermas, Jürgen. “Können komplexe Gesellschaften eine vernünftige Identität ausbilden?” Habermas, Jürgen and Dieter Henrich. Zwei Reden: aus Anlaß der Verleihung des Hegelpreises 1973 der Stadt Stuttgart an Jürgen Habermas am 19. Januar 1974. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1974. 23-84.

Hale, Mike. The New York Times. 21 Oktober 2010. 3 November 2013. . 63

Hannibal. Dir. created by Bryan Fuller. Perf. Hugh Dancy and Mads Mikkelsen. 2013-.

Hartswood-Films. Sherlockology - John´s Pistol. n.d. 20 November 2013. .

—. Sherlockology - Skull Tie. n.d. 20 November 2013. .

Hutcheon, Linda. A Theory of Adaptation. New York: Routledge, 2006.

—. The Politics od Postmodernism. London: Routledge, 1989.

Jones, Nerys. “La gazza ladra Overture.” Rossini: La Gazza Ladra. 2003. CD.

Korte, Barbara et al. “Geschichte und Kriminalgeschichte(n): Texte, Kontexte, Zugänge.” Korte, Barbara et al. Geschichte im Krimi: Beiträge aus den Kulturwissenschaften. Köln: Böhlau, 2009. 7-27.

Kristeva, Julia. Powers of Horror: An Essay on Abjection. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982.

Lacan, Jaques. Schriften I. Ed. Norbert Haas. Olten: Walter Verlag, 1973.

Lauper, Cindie. “Girls Just Want to Have Fun.” She`s So Unusual. By Robert Hazard. 1983. CD.

Lloyd, Moya. “Julia Kristeva.” Simons, Jon. Contemporary Critical Theorists: From Lacan to Said. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004. 135-151.

Moffat, Steven. In 'Sherlock', A Classic Sleuth For The Modern Age npr morning edition. 19 Oktober 2010.

Moffat, Steven. Sherlock, The Reichenbach Fall, Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat on Moriarty (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGcqvn2grx4&list=FLGkI- OEeZqozc_Aljhm1xpw&index=8) BBC One. 2012.

Moffat, Steven. Steven Moffat & Benedict Cumberbatch RE: "Reichenbach Fall" Masterpiece. 20 Mai 2012.

Monaco, James. How to read a Film: The Art, Technology, Language, History, and Theory of FIlm and Media. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981.

Monk. Dir. created by Andy Breckman. Perf. Tony Shalhoub. 2002-2009.

Nietzsche, Friedrich. Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag, 1964.

Nünning, Ansgar, ed. Metzler Lexikon Literatur- und Kulturtheorien. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler´sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2008.

P22 Type Foundry. 2009. 13 Oktober 2013. .

Psych. Dir. created by Steve Franks. Perf. James Roday and Dulé Hill. 2006-. 64

Rohrbeck, Oliver, Jens Wawrczeck and Andreas Fröhlich. “154/Botschaft aus der Unterwelt.” Europa, 2012. CD.

Roush, Matt. TV Guide. 22 Oktober 2010. 3 November 2013. .

Said, Edward. Orientalism. New York: Random House, 1994.

Saturday Night Fever. Dir. John Badham. Perf. John Travolta. 1977. DVD.

Scott, Andrew. FULL SESSION - Sherlock: The Network MGEITF Joint Session Masterclass 2012.

Sencidiver, Susan Yi et al. “Introduction.” Sencidiver, Susan Yi et al. Otherness: A Multilateral Perspective. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2011. 17-42.

Sherlock Holmes contra Moriarty: Das Erbe von Bloomrod. Dir. Viggo Larsen. Perf. Paul Otto and Viggo Larsen. 1911.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Dir. Guy Ritchie. Perf. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. 2011. DVD.

Simone, Nina. “Sinnerman.” Pastel Blues. 1965. CD.

Sonny&Cher. “I Got You Babe.” Look at Us. By Sonny Bobo. 1965. CD.

Stavrakakis, Yannis. “Jacques Lacan (1901-81).” Simons, Jon. Contemporary Critical Theorists: From Lacan to Said. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2004. 18-33.

The Following. Dir. created by Kevin Williamson. Perf. Kevin Bacon and James Purefoy. 2013-.

The Great Mouse Detective. Dirs. Ron Clements and Burny Mattinson. Perf. Barrie Ingham and Val Bettin. 1986. DVD.

The Mentalist. Dir. created by Bruno Heller. Perf. Simon Baker and Robin Tunney. 2008-.

The Thomas Crown Affair. Dir. John McTiernan. Perf. Pierce Brosnan. 1999. DVD.

Widmer, Peter. “Sternstunde Philosophie: Lacan verstehen. Andreas Cremonini und Peter Widmer über den französischen Psychoanalytiker Jacques Lacan.” Sternstunde Philosophie. Michael Pfister. 28 März 2010.

65

7 Erklärung

Hiermit erkläre ich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig und ohne fremde Hilfe angefertigt und keine anderen als die angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel verwendet habe.

Die eingereichte schriftliche Fassung der Arbeit entspricht der auf dem elektronischen Speichermedium.

Weiterhin versichere ich, dass diese Arbeit noch nicht als Abschlussarbeit an anderer Stelle vorgelegen hat.

Datum, Unterschrift

LXVI

8 Appendix

figure 1

LXVII figure 2

figure 3

figure 4

LXVIII figure 5

figure 6

LXIX figure 7

figure 8

LXX figure 9

LXXI figure 10

figure 11

figure 12

LXXII figure 13

figure 14

LXXIII figure 15

figure 16

LXXIV figure 17

figure 18

figure 19

LXXV figure 20

figure 21

LXXVI figure 22

figure 23

LXXVII figure 24

figure 25

figure 26

LXXVIII figure 27

figure 28

LXXIX figure 29

figure 30

LXXX figure 31