Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Mastodon Review of Elementary Episode 2.10 "Tremors": "I Fought the Law"


    Enable Dark Mode!

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

SpoilerTV - TV Spoilers

Review of Elementary Episode 2.10 "Tremors": "I Fought the Law"

6 Dec 2013

Share on Reddit


 "Tremors" brings together new and old hands. The episode was directed by first-time Elementary director Aaron Lipstadt but written by Liz Friedman, executive producer of the show and author of several episodes. The episode is structurally unusual in that it unfolds non-linearly, with a court hearing investigating Holmes's (Johnny Lee Miller) methods punctuated by flashbacks to the case that precipitated the hearing. The episode offers an additional, and curious, duality in that it plays the show's characteristic humor against somewhat deeper seriousness than normal, as the episode offers possibly the most probing exploration to date of the mixed blessing Holmes's methods represent.

The humor is represented primarily by Holmes's arrogant behavior on the stand. He challenges the legitimacy of the judge (Frankie Faison), for instance, by noting that, while technically a judge, he is not really adjudicating in a genuine court of law--an unwise point to stress, since the judge may end up determining whether Holmes and Watson (Lucy Liu) will be able to continue working for the police. Holmes also twits the lawyer questioning him, Miss Walker (Elizabeth Marvel), though after Gregson (Aidan Quinn) warns him that he'd better be nicer if he wishes the hearing to go well, he does make a typically awakward attempt to reach out to Walker, by identifying her as an alcoholic and acknowledging her ability to cope with her condition. This scene offers a delicate balance, as Walker initially wonders whether Holmes is showing his knowledge of her illness as a kind of threat, before Holmes clarifies that he means to offer a token of respect. Holmes's consistent inability to make human connections is of course a recurrent motif in the series but takes on heavier wieght in this episode.

It does so because the real thrust of the episode (as is in fact common on Elementary) has little to do with the actual murder mystery. This time out, a woman has apparently been murdered by her ex-lover, a schizophrenic named Silas Cole (Zachary Booth) who conceives of himself as a medieval knight and she as his queen. Cole's profoundly dissociative behavior and inability to communicate effectively surely functions as ametaphor for Holmes's own limited skills as a communicator, painting a grim picture of how Holmes might end up, especially if his queen, Watson, fails to keep him within bounds. As for the actual murderer, I suspect most viewers instantly figured out that the real culprit was her doctor, Phineas Hobbs (Jordan Lage)--who else but a murderer would have such a name?--who killed her to conceal the fact that the drugs she was taking as part of his medical trial had deadly side effects. As a mystery, really, this is a giant "so what"? with none of the parties involved really mattering; if I were not writing this review, I suspect I would already have forgotten the details.

What matters is not who did what to whom but instead the human cost of Holmes's arrogance. As noted, Holmes's arrogance is played for humor early in the episode--especially in the scene in which Holmes's account of Gregson's florid words of praise for him clearly do not represent events as they occurred. This Rashomon-like element is not developed, however; we don't get multiple subjective versions of events. Instead, we get Holmes lying about his illegal activities in pursuing the case, but lying in so casual and obvious a way that he undermines his credibility. The flashbacks consistently put the lie to Holmes's representations of events (e.g. his denial that he and Watson break into suspects' homes, or that he stole a suspect's phone in order to get information from it). Holmes's arrogance here helps turn the judge against him, just as his arrogance in the case ultimately creates a situation in which Detective Bell (Jon Michael Hill) gets shot, taking a bullet a disgruntled ex-suspect intended for Holmes. Holmes's methods cost ex-con James Dylan (Danny Mastrogriorgio) not only his job but also his freedom, because Holmes's lack of tact and discretion expose Dylan's criminal history to his boss and lead to his parole being revoked.
Holmes's pleasure at exonerating Silas Cole, the schizophrenic suspect, thereby ensuring that an innocent man is not in jail, is reversed here, as another innocent man ends up not merely going back to jail but in fact driven to an act of desperate violence because of the damage Holmes has done him.

More literal is the damage done to Bell. The bullet he took for Holmes may lead to permanent damage to his right arm and therefore to the end of his career. Though Bell supports Holmes continuing to consult for the police when the Commissioner (Brian Reddy) asks him his opinion, hen Holmes visits him in the hospital, awkwardly trying to make amends, Bell rejects his overtures. Seeing Hill get to show some emotional range is  a welcome change, though he actually gets little screen time.

Holmes's coping mechanisms are shown to be straining in this episode, as we watch him engage in characteristic distractions, such as a scientific experiment to divide objects into ones that weight more or less than Clyde, in practicing with his stick, and in cooking. Indeed, culinary scenes in Elementary are a recurrent motif, often serving as the site of dialogue between Holmes and Watson. Here, as has been happening more frequently in recent episodes, Watson challenges Holmes's behavior, pushing him to change. Given the consequences here--the potentially maiming injury to Bell--the series seems to be building to a head in its depiction of Holmes's cavalier actions. It is no doubt significant that Bell walks away from Holmes in his final scene in the episode.

Since next week offers the fall finale, it will be interesting to see whether we end with this growing focus on the problematic aspects of Holmes's skirting of the law front and center. How did you like the episode? Do you think Holmes is heading for a fall? Tune in next week!








10 comments:

  1. Devon Maxwell-Pierce6 December 2013 at 05:40

    I think Sherlock is going to lead to Joan's fall and it's going to be terrible for both of him. He's fond of Bell. He needs Joan.

    ReplyDelete
  2. disqus_BLvd5NQY3F6 December 2013 at 05:51

    It be a great twist if moriarty orchestrate Bell getting shot in order to damage relationship of holmes/Watson and bell/holmes and cut all ties with nypd

    ReplyDelete
  3. Great review. I thought the episode was really interestingly structured, right down to who told which part of the story. It definitely seems like Holmes is heading to some kind of epiphany...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks--and excellent point! I totally should have commented on the shift to Watson on the stand in the second half. That, too, led me to expect that we might get mor eof a Rashomon-style narrative, but they really didn't much develop that angle. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Totally agreed that he needs Watson, and anything grave happening to her would be devastating. Can serious Watson peril be coming? I suspect so.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmmmm. It's tough to see how that could be the case, but yes, it would be quite a twist.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anyone else notice Sherlock hiding his watch when talking about how knights wore something of their ladies on their hand. Is that watch from Irene?....

    ReplyDelete
  8. I DID notice it at the time but then forgot about it until I saw your comment. Innnnnnteresting!

    ReplyDelete
  9. i've never really liked episodes of any show structured like this one, the switching from present to past, but this one didn't bug me as much. i actually liked this episode because finally, FINALLY there were some consequences to Holmes's actions, even though in the end he was reinstated. While i think what happened with Bell shook Holmes up a little, nothing but Watson being the on in the line of fire will change Holmes. He truly feels the end justifies the means(and i can't really argue against it) so little will change.


    however, it is quite clear he deeply cares for Watson(hopefully nothing ever more than friendship/brotherly love) so if he were to do something that put HER in the hospital or serious peril, it may make him hesitate.

    ReplyDelete
  10. This episode was terrible. Why is it necessary to take a great character and demean him, as the writer of this episode has done? The premise is that Sherlock cares so little for rules of any sort that he would wantonly endanger a colleague's life. But this was never true of Holmes in any previous incarnation, or even in "Elementary" heretofore. Yes, Sherlock is iconoclastic and dislikes useless protocol, but he was never so egotistical and careless that he would fail to consider the ramifications of his actions. BTW, the writer of this episode did the same thing previously with Dr. House on "House": Over the course of that show, he degenerated from a brilliant diagnostician with eccentricities into a juvenile manipulator of his friends who patronized hookers regularly, drove his car into his boss's house, and wound up not only in a mental institution but also in prison. It's easy to take a beloved character and concentrate on the negative; it's a lot harder to write something that capitalizes on what makes him beloved.

    ReplyDelete

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