Okay, so we've talked about Story Circle with regard to BBC's Sherlock, and we've talked about Four-Corner Opposition with regards to it, and we've talked about Rule of Threes, and Conciseness and Quadrant Method with regards to BBCs Sherlock and now we've even examined the first scene using all these methods, so let's keep it going.
We always find here that things are better with example. And just like all these rules apply to the larger narrative, in this case, the July 2010 Sherlock episode "A Study in Pink," it's also supposed to work for every scene. Every scene should have a Story Circle. Every scene should be concise.
So, let's continue to look at Sherlock: A Study in Pink. Every scene, in intricate, to show how this is done at such a high level of expertise. Continuing on to Scene 03, when Watson meets Mike Stamford.
As we've discussed, when Introducing your character to the audience it's smart to show them in two scenes: one at work and one at home, one of those interacting with someone they love, one with someone they hate. This not only gives us a sense of who they are, but also their emotional state. It relays a lot of information to the audience right off the bat.
The first scene with John showed him alone in his home, checking one of those boxes. I said then that skipping one of these four steps also confers information. In this scene we're back with Watson, and we see him walking through the park with a heavy limp. We see him bump into an old friend, someone he cares for, Mike Stamford.
Watson is bitter here, snapping, but he tries to hold back the snaps and bites his tongue. He's trying, he's just so bitter that he's still being mean. He's in pain, emotionally and physically. But he is trying, he cares enough for Mike to try, and the way Mike acts towards him it's clear they were good friends. This is John with someone he cares for, even though his bitterness prevents him from showing that.
Think about what that communicates about his character: his character is so broken that this is how he's acting towards people he likes. It's sad. But it also adds context to that first scene, as we said in that analysis: if this is Watson with someone he likes, then when he was at home alone he was with someone he hates... himself.
This act, of inferring meaning not from the scene itself but from the scenes around it, of scaffolding our knowledge, is called The Kuleshov Effect, named for its founder, and is based on the idea that scenes are given additional meaning by the scenes around it. We'll see that really clearly at the end of this scene.
Back to the scene, you also might have noticed that we aren't showing Watson at work (or at school, which is a fine substitute). Just like showing him at home alone infers something in the absence, not showing him at work also infers something: that he's unemployed / not doing anything. This will be confirmed with dialog in a moment, when they mention "army pension."
So you can see the writers here using the Story Circle to communicate a massive amount of information sub-textually, without the audience even being aware they're getting it: Watson was in the army, he lives alone and hates himself, has PTSD, isn't working currently, and is bitter to even those he cares for most. That's a lot to work from, and he's said maybe ten lines at this point.
In meeting Mike, we can confirm that Watson was shot. But the main conflict of this scene is very simple: Mike thinks he's met up with an old friend, and Watson does not feel like that person anymore. Mike is affable, jovial, and expects John to act the same. This communicates to us, the audience, that Watson was not always this way. That before he went to war, he conformed to Mike's expectations. This is the conflict: Watson is confronted with this kind of expectation from his past and that he's not meeting it, and it makes him even more bitter.
This conflict is made painfully clear in this interaction: Mike: "Staying in town till you get yourself sorted?" Watson: "Can’t afford London on an army pension." Mike: "And you couldn’t bear to be anywhere else. Not the John Watson I know!" Watson: "I’m not the John Watson you --" He bites that answer off.
Again we are saying the conflict of this scene out loud here. Watson does not feel like the man he was, as is upset by being unintentionally confronted by that.
This is also an excellent example of a Lacanian Mirror Stage moment in the script, a moment where a character is confronted by how another sees them. This, in and of itself, is a Rule-of-Threes style Setup. Thrice in this narrative, Watson will be confronted with how others see him: once here, at the start, once at the end of Act 1 by Miss Hudson (chafing against which will propel him into the narrative), and once at the end by Sherlock. We will see his character growth through the eyes of other characters.
This is also important as it Sets Up that Watson cannot afford to live in London alone. This is a very simple, utilitarian setup: we need to engineer a reason for Watson and Sherlock to move in together so quickly. This set up isn't for some grand payoff, it's mechanical. It's because we need it. Likewise, Mike asks why "Harry" can't help, and Watson dismisses it. This is kind of a Set Up, but also kind of housekeeping. In a later scene we'll be spectacularly introduced to the concept of Harry, so a viewer might ask "why isn't Watson staying with them?" So we answer that question before they can think it.
So at this point, Harry dismissed, Mike raises the possibility of a roommate. Watson says nobody would want to live with him, and Mike says "You’re the second person to say that to me today." To which Watson asks: "Who was the first?"
The scene ends there, and were that it, that wouldn't make much sense as a way to end it. But as we've alluded to above with The Kuleshov Effect, scenes are influenced by the scenes around them. The next scene will start with showing Sherlock's face for the first time, answering this question: who was the first? Sherlock was the first. In film when you do this it is called an Answer Cut. The cut is what is answering the posed question.
When it comes to Conciseness, this scene works very well at arriving at the point: Watson lives alone and is intrigued to hear about Sherlock, also looking for a roommate. Bam. Easy peasy. There's also wonderful Conflict between Watson and Mike, on a superficial but understandable level that tells us things about Watson's character and past as a result. There's not really a Story Circle inherit to this scene, but it plays an important role in the larger Story Circle for the whole episode.
See? This is how it's done. All tools used. Perfectly balanced. And as the viewer, you're none the wiser. It seems like magic, it seems like it just happened. It seems fresh and original, but it's done using the same tools of the trade that have existed for a hundred years. Join us soon for Scene Four!
Like this and what more of it? I teach interactive online classes over Zoom, three-four times a year for 10 weeks. Take your writing to the next level! Click the link for more information or to contact me.
Comments