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.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/22/arts/television/22sherlock.html?_r=0>.

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.

<http://www.sherlockology.com/props/johns-pistol>.

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

<http://www.sherlockology.com/wardrobe/skull-tie-jim-moriarty>.

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.

<http://www.p22.com/products/london.html>.

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.

<http://www.tvguide.com/News/Roush-Review-Contemporary-

1024616.aspx>.

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