Sherlock | A Study in Pink | Scene Breakdown | Scene 09
- May 30
- 8 min read
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 09, we've seen Sherlock prove himself to Watson, now we're going to see that tested in the field.
The important thing to watch about this scene is that it is DRIVEN by OPPOSITION. By Conflict, for lack of a better term. On the face of it, this scene is very simple: Sherlock will examine the fourth body, explain the clues he finds to Watson (and by extension, the viewer), and then come to a conclusion based on that evidence that will propel him into the next stage of the narrative.
There are dozens of very functional ways to write that, but again, when sitting down to write we're always looking at CONFLICT. Every scene, ask yourself: what is the conflict? It'd be easy to write this scene without conflict, three people (maybe even four) working together to the same goal, to solve this woman's murder. And while it would certainly be serviceable, a bit of conflict elevates it.
There are four characters in this scene, four living ones, anyway: Sherlock, Watson, LeStrade, and Anderson. And when you look at that, you can easily see where the lines divide. We have two men in charge, and their assistants. Sherlock has Watson, LeStrade has Anderson. Through this interaction you can see personality types, and you can see why Sherlock will need Watson. He can't work with LeStrade or with Anderson, there's too much conflict.
There's an odd RULE OF THREES thing happening in that, isn't there? We're using conflict to compare and contrast Sherlock against three different potential mates, and through that contrast, proving out which one is superior.
Back to the four-corner opposition, on the top column we might have "Master" and "Apprentice" and on the other we might have "skeptical of Sherlock" and "accepting of Sherlock." Through this lens, every bit of evidence gathered will be scrutinized as each is called into question and run through the ringer of this conflict. This is good! Watching the characters not just assume things but test those assumptions, that's brilliant, and leaves little doubt that the final assumptions are valid.
Let's start the scene, and our Story Circle. 1. We get our introduction IN THE HALL outside the crime scene. The locations aren't going to change much in this scene, so pay attention to them. Act 1 and Act 3 will both be in the Hall, with Act 2 being in the room.
In the Act One we have a quick RULE OF THREES pissing match between Sherlock and LeStrade. LeStrade says he can only give Sherlock two minutes, Sherlock says he may need more, it sets up a dynamic: LeStrade is trying to assert boundaries and Sherlock is just powering right past them. LeStade then tries to get Sherlock to put on scrubs, to which he refuses, but Watson complies. LeStrade then demands to know who Watson is but Sherlock again deflects. "He's with me." This is a RULE OF THREES that quickly SETS UP one of the conflicts of the scene: LeStrade trying to maintain control of the situation, and Sherlock refusing those efforts.
Once this is accepted, and we're still on our way up to the room with the body, LeStrade starts rattling off details about the victim. "Jennifer Wilson, according to her credit cards" and they're running more now: they have very little information. This will show the disparity between the information LeStrade and his team can glean as compared to Sherlock. This is what Act 1 is FOR, we're setting everything up.
Then we enter the room, and we're in Act 2 of this scene, and things just shift. When the body is there, you can see the people it affects (Watson) and the people is doesn't (Sherlock). This is contrast, this is conflict. In the dark room, the woman is clothed entirely in PINK (the name of the episode), and stands out. Everything in the room's design draws attention to how loud the clothes are.
Before anyone speaks, Sherlock tells LeStrade to shut up. "You were thinking loudly. It's annoying." LeStrade and Watson share a look with one another, they have the same reaction. Again, the reactions to stimuli are showing the similarities and differences between the characters: this is needed. If you have two or more characters in a scene, when there is stimuli, you need to consider how they react from a character perspective.
When then cut to what we can only call "Sherlock's POV" as he examines the body and flashes of text appear on the screen to illustrate what he's thinking. Despite his intuitive nature, he's coming to things the same way we do: via RULE OF THREES. Let's look.
He sees the wedding and engagement rings, and the text declares she's married. We then cut to the word RACHE, carved into the floor with his fingernails. He considers the dictionary definition as the text appears on the screen, then discards it. We see him try different letters for the last one, landing on L for RACHEL.
He runs a hand over the coat, looks at his gloved fingers. The word WET pulses across the screen ... Pulls a fold-away umbrella from her pocket: DRY. Slides his hand under her collar, checks his fingers: WET.
This is RULE OF THREES. Sherlock is making deductions based on Rule of Threes. There were three points checked, two were wet, one was different, what explains this? It's important to note that this isn't really how investigations are done, but it is how stories are told. Sherlock is using the mechanisms of story to convince us this is the story of a good investigator.
He switches back to the jewellery and we see descriptions of three of them: necklace, earrings, bracelet: CLEAN, CLEAN, CLEAN. Now we go back to her wedding ring from the start: DIRTY. The word MARRIED appears again, now with UNHAPPILY added to the front, as he amends his previous assumption. Numbers scroll past just like the L in Rachel did, revealing his assumption that she has been Unhappily Married for 10+ years. He takes off the ring, examines the inside. It says CLEAN inside and DIRTY outside. Then the words SERIAL ADULTERER appear below it.
Four pieces of jewellery (three to make the pattern, and one to break it) and the same amount of data towards their cleanliness.
LeStrade asks if he has anything, to which Sherlock shrugs "not much." Anderson, in his sole contribution to the scene, pipes up from outside the dictionary definition of RACHE which Sherlock had already thought of and dismissed. He shuts the door on Anderson.
Sherlock concludes: "She’s from out of town. Planned to spend a single night in London, before returning home to Cardiff. Obvious." Watson and LeStrade both object sternly "Obvious?" Again: same input, same result. We're definitely slowing a linkage between Watson and LeStrade.
Sherlock asks Watson for his opinion on the body, and LeStrade (for the fourth time) objects to this bending of the rules, but then relents: he does need Sherlock. Watson asks what the hell Sherlock is doing, he says "proving a point." So we get some closure on the drama between LeStrade and Sherlock that's been bubbling since the first act of the scene.
Watson gives a normal analysis, when LeStrade demands the result. Shelock gives the summation of all we've seen: Victim is in her late forties. Professional person going by her clothes - I’d guess something in the media, going by the shade of pink. She’s travelled from Cardiff today, intending to stay for one night - that’s obvious from the size of her SUITCASE (LeStrade tries to interupt to ask "Suitcase," drawing attention to this fact, but Sherlock barrels on) She’s been married for at least ten years, but not happily. She’s had a string of lovers, but none of them have known she was married.
LeStrade interrupts again, accuses him of making things up. Sherlock then explains the methodology: the only time the wedding ring gets cleaned is when she works it off her finger.
Watson interupts: "Brilliant!" Again, contrast. Both LeStrade and Watson, who have been very similar in their reactions twice already, differ on their reaction to Sherlock's methods: one is incredulous, the other in awe. This difference, this illustrates why Watson will make a good partner and LeStrade would not. We set up how they were the same, now we set up how they differ. You could almost build a list of their character traits based just on how the react to this.
Encouraged, Sherlock explains how he knows where she was coming from: he'd paid attention to what parts of her clothes were wet, what was dry, deduced how long she was in the rain before she got in a CAB, that she wasn't in the cab long enough to dry, and used that to determine her starting point. Watson and LeStrade both react to this, but we also see Sherlock's reaction to them: he cannot believe how dumb they are, to him this is all obvious. That's an important detail, it further illustrates that he doesn't really understand how "normal" people think.
The narrative breezed right past an important plot point there ON PURPOSE: she got a CAB. It's said quickly. Very quickly. It's only on rewatch that we know this is the FOURTH link to a VICTIM and a CAB, the first three being in the second scene of the episode. We don't want the average viewer to get it yet, so we breeze right by it and speak very quickly, but it's there.
Watson compliments Sherlock a fourth time. Sherlock comments not to stop, he likes it. Seeing their dynamic build.
Sherlock mentions the suitcase again, explains through the evidence how he knows its there, when LeStrade drops the bomb: there is no suitcase. Excited, Sherlock bursts out into the hall again.
So dividing this scene into three act structure, we're into Act 3 now. Act 1 was outside the room, Act 2 within and the examination, and now we're back outside. Sherlock has reached a conclusion after discovering the bag is missing, yells the work "PINK" as though that explains anything, then runs off. "It’s murder. All of them. I don’t know how, but they’re not suicides, they’re killings - serial killings. We’ve got a serial killer. Love those, there’s always something to look forward to."
So the CONSISE POINT of this scene would be: it IS definitely a serial killer, we know that now, and Sherlock has found a clue that will unravel them... although he hasn't explained to LeStrade, Watson, or us what that is.
Zooming back to our Story Circle for the scene: 1. Introduction: we start the scene and get the details we need in the hall. 2. Wants: Sherlock wants to get information on the case, but also to prove his worth and methods to LeStrade. 3. He Enters the room to examine the body. 4. He examines it, getting three facts: the state of her marriage, the name RACHEL, and the dampness. 5. he gets what he wanted: the clue! 6: But he's assumed the suitcase is there and it isn't, poking a hole in his own theory. 7: we then return out to the hall, but 8: things are different now, he has an assumption to go on.
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 Ten!
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