?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
02 January 2012 @ 09:45 pm
A Scandal in Belgravia  


I've been sitting here for awhile trying to put my thoughts together, because while there were some things I really enjoyed, there were a lot of things I was really troubled by. And I know that a lot of people on my flist just really loved it, and I don't want to harsh anyone's squee. But I just have to throw my two cents in. And I certainly don't want to tell anyone that they shouldn't be enjoying it, or bring it down in their eyes, but I have feelings, and so...

Let's face it, Steven Moffat is a misogynist, and that comes out in everything he does. Even when he writes supposed "strong female characters", they're more this kind. And again, I'm not trying to tell people not to like them; there are plenty of them that I like, too. But again, there are tropes and elements that are deeply troubling, and I think that needs to be addressed and not glossed over.

Because female characters get criticized constantly, and so often by women, I feel like it's important to ask: is this internalized misogyny coming out? Is this being overly critical? Is a female character getting called a Mary Sue when a male character would just be considered awesome? But there are problems with the women Moffat writes, sometimes on the surface, and sometimes more deeply, and I have to address them.

Irene Adler: on the surface- strong, charismatic, smart, sexy. But oh my god, the use of the lesbian who still falls deeply in love with the male hero: SO PROBLEMATIC. (And offensive, not to mention over-used.) Also problematic: the glamorization of sex workers. Yes, she chooses it, and she seems to enjoy it, and in real life, I would never judge someone for it. But this is just another example of the trope wherein the only way women can have power is through sex. And let's not talk about the male gaze issues in this: we had the parallel getting ready scenes between Sherlock and Irene... only Sherlock ends up in a bulky police coat, while Irene is in lingerie and then is totally naked. (I could even go into a long discussion of the application of make-up scene, but that's better left to Julia Serano, who has a great analysis of that in Whipping Girl: A Transsexual Woman on Sexism and the Scapegoating of Femininity. Also, I am aware that Sherlock ended up in the buff earlier, but a) that was played for laughs, b) it was very brief, and c) it wasn't in a sexually charged situation.)

Also, there was that whole thing where Irene needed to consult with Jim Moriarty, and yet was still in the end outwitted by Sherlock. In the original VICTORIAN story, Irene didn't need to consult with Moriarty, and also was successful in outsmarting Holmes. Nor did she end up needing to be saved by him. AND THIS WAS THE VICTORIAN ERA.

All of this was in the same episode where Mrs. Hudson was brutalized and needed rescue, and where Molly was totally humiliated by Sherlock, but oh, a kiss on the cheek makes it all better. Oh, and Watson had a girlfriend even he couldn't remember, and who is played as unsympathetic despite her valid grievances. ::headdesk::

I was very amused at how the cliffhanger with Moriarty was resolved, I was happy to see Lestrade, the deerstalker was awesome, John had some great bits, there were lots of good interactions with Mycroft... but despite the fact that there were a lot of things I enjoyed, I was still left wishing that I could get Moffat enrolled in therapy. And some women's studies courses.
 
 
Current Mood: worriedtroubled
Current Music: Aimee Mann
 
 
 
Hoshihoshinekoyasha on January 3rd, 2012 02:50 am (UTC)
I have a friend I want to link this to, can you please unlock it?
But you can call me Bowie: sherlock bbc 2isiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 02:52 am (UTC)
Yeah, I can do that. I demand your response, though. :D
(no subject) - hoshinekoyasha on January 3rd, 2012 03:03 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - isiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 03:14 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - hoshinekoyasha on January 3rd, 2012 03:16 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - hoshinekoyasha on January 4th, 2012 05:05 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - isiscaughey on January 4th, 2012 12:10 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - hoshinekoyasha on January 4th, 2012 03:50 pm (UTC) (Expand)
faith5by5_1013: Doctor Who: Nine/Ten/Rose: Bad Wolf Bayfaith5by5_1013 on January 3rd, 2012 03:06 am (UTC)
I agree with pretty much everything you said! I loved season 1 of Sherlock (and that completely took me by surprise because I have lots of issues with Moffat). But this episode was really disappointing. I don't know much about the original Sherlock Holmes stories, but I do know that this was Moffat writing women the way Moffat always seems to write women. It drives me completely crazy.

I'm so glad I'm not alone in noticing (and being bothered by) these things.
But you can call me Bowie: dr who 9/rose two of usisiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 03:12 am (UTC)
They kept almost nothing from Irene's original character. Almost nothing. (In addition to the things listed above, she was not committing treason, or blackmailing lots of people- she kept the photos of her with the King of Bohemia pretty much for her own protection.)

It really bothers me that Moffat is often worshiped the way he is. I've been yelled at by fanboys for daring to question his brilliance.
(no subject) - faith5by5_1013 on January 3rd, 2012 04:01 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - isiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 04:04 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - faith5by5_1013 on January 3rd, 2012 04:16 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - isiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 04:17 am (UTC) (Expand)
lysimache: doctor who: assertive!amylysimache on January 3rd, 2012 03:35 am (UTC)
YES, yes, yes, yes, yes -- all of this. :(
But you can call me Bowie: dr who 11isiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 03:39 am (UTC)
Seriously, I wish we could just force Moffat into therapy and women's studies classes. My TV watching life would vastly improve.
The murmuring pines and the hemlocks: Mark Gatiss: Slybootsgadgetorious on January 3rd, 2012 05:34 am (UTC)
Yeah, I really enjoyed the episode on the whole. I'm ecstatic to have the show back and it had a lot of moments that made my fangirl heart very happy. BUT. BUT.

I HATED that Irene A) fell in love with Sherlock despite being a self-professed lesbian? I mean, I get that you couldn't really take anything she said at face value [and THAT'S an issue to take up another time perhaps] but WHAT?

Ugh. I was bothered that she needed saving in the end.

I was EXTREMELY bothered that Sherlock figured everything out at the last minute. She was supposed to best him, not ALMOST best him and then flee with tears in her eyes because she just loves him so much.

And why, WHY, must she always be working for Moriarty? Why can't she just be a kickass criminal mastermind in her own right? I've never actually really liked the character of Moriarty that much. Irene is COOLER than he is.

I <3 this post because it is everything tocourtdisaster and I bitched about in between our bouts of squee. (Because in all honesty I can be as annoyed as I like at Moffat but I'll still be rewatching this episode.) I really can't think of anything to add because you've just listed all my complaints. Well, all the ones really worth complaining about, but yeah.

Edited at 2012-01-03 05:35 am (UTC)
But you can call me Bowie: sherlock bbc 2isiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 12:10 pm (UTC)
And why, WHY, must she always be working for Moriarty? Why can't she just be a kickass criminal mastermind in her own right? I've never actually really liked the character of Moriarty that much. Irene is COOLER than he is.

Seriously. Why does this come up in both the recent versions of Sherlock Holmes? Why?

I mean, yeah, there were some plot holes and minor pacing issues too, but those were the sorts of things I can gloss over.

And there was a lot to be amused by- like the clients montage at the beginning. But Moffat just had to go and spew his misogyny over my enjoyment...
(no subject) - gadgetorious on January 3rd, 2012 05:48 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - isiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 10:54 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - gadgetorious on January 4th, 2012 03:43 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - isiscaughey on January 4th, 2012 04:01 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Sky: DW Donna TARDIS doorskybound2 on January 3rd, 2012 05:49 am (UTC)
It's late where I am, and I am on my tablet, so I can't give you the full response I would like, so I'm just gonna go with:

THIS.

Took the words right out of my mouth. I did enjoy parts lf the episode, but they (re: Moffet) failed HORRIBLY with Irene Adler.
But you can call me Bowie: dr who donnaisiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 12:11 pm (UTC)
Yeah. If there weren't things I enjoyed, I never would have watched the whole thing. Why does Moffat have to do these things?
blooms842ndskin on January 3rd, 2012 04:36 pm (UTC)
love your post--you hit the problems right on the head--well done!
Relevant to this, you might be interested in a fic that fixed the ending:
http://marysutherland.livejournal.com/49914.html
But you can call me Bowie: sherlock holmes: rdjisiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 11:42 pm (UTC)
Thanks!
ykoriana: loki is inquisitive!ykoriana on January 3rd, 2012 08:43 pm (UTC)
In a nutshell: I agree with absolutely everything you said.

As someone else commented, I find it extremely annoying that modern takes on Holmes (this and the first Guy Ritchie movie) seem obsessed with Moriarty and then turn Irene Adler into a mere Moriarty pawn.

To me, the definite A Scandal in Belgravia will always be the Jeremy Brett / Granada version: faithful to the source material, strong and resourceful Irene, and OMG the erotic tension, yet they barely touch through the whole episode.
But you can call me Bowie: sherlock holmesisiscaughey on January 3rd, 2012 11:43 pm (UTC)
Jeremy Brett is my Holmes, and I imagine always will be. He's the only actor that in my opinion manages to portray all the sides of Holmes. (And he even looked like the Sidney Paget illustrations, at least before his health went bad.)
(no subject) - ykoriana on January 4th, 2012 12:35 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - isiscaughey on January 4th, 2012 01:31 am (UTC) (Expand)
i'm just a deaf, mute mime: sherlock :: there's some confusion heretocourtdisaster on January 4th, 2012 11:29 pm (UTC)
I got linked to this by gadgetorious, and I have to say that you've managed to articulate quite a bit of what bothered me about the episode (the other bit being the question of virginity which I think I'm going to have to make a post about to get my Feelings out). God forbid that Irene be a smart, genuinely strong woman without it being about sex. And, yes, she's portrayed as intelligent, but the best part, the part where she figures out the hiker and the boomerang isn't even her; it's a figment of Sherlock's imagination. She's smart enough to get useful photos and information from her clients, but not smart enough to figure out what to do with them? That hardly seems like the Irene Adler who could outwit Sherlock Holmes all on her own.

What I think I wished for, more than anything, was an Irene Adler recognizable from the original canon, and that's not what I got. Some of the details were right, but the whole picture was wrong and it was disappointing. And I honestly don't mind that things get changed because there's no way to keep everything the same, but when you get to the point that the only recognizable feature of the character in question is their name, then you've gone too far, I think.
But you can call me Bowie: sherlock bbc 2isiscaughey on January 5th, 2012 02:13 am (UTC)
What I think I wished for, more than anything, was an Irene Adler recognizable from the original canon, and that's not what I got.

Seriously. When the Victorians are doing it better, you know something is fucked up.

gadgetorious suggested that we should friend each other, which works for me if it works for you.
(no subject) - tocourtdisaster on January 5th, 2012 02:14 am (UTC) (Expand)
soophelia: Holmes/Watsonsoophelia on January 6th, 2012 05:38 pm (UTC)
I agree pretty much with what you said. It baffles me that there are people defending Moffat and not seeing what is so clearly wrong with what he wrote (i.e. erasure of queer identity, taking a strong woman who wins and having her become weak and in the end losing among other problematic things).

Moffat's Adler is not Irene Adler. For someone that prides himself on being true to canon, he certainly got it completely wrong. I wish I could wipe this episode from my mind. Seriously.

But you can call me Bowie: sherlock bbcisiscaughey on January 7th, 2012 02:07 am (UTC)
It baffles me that there are people defending Moffat and not seeing what is so clearly wrong with what he wrote (i.e. erasure of queer identity, taking a strong woman who wins and having her become weak and in the end losing among other problematic things).

So many people don't want to think about the problems with their entertainment. Some people don't even understand why one would want to analyze, critique, or otherwise even think about TV. And some people don't see a problem with his writing, and call anyone who criticized him a man-hating feminazi. It baffles me, too.

For someone that prides himself on being true to canon, he certainly got it completely wrong.

So VERY VERY wrong. Seriously. As mentioned above, if the VICTORIANS are doing it better, there's some fail going on.

Out of curiosity's sake, how did you stumble upon this post? Also, saw that you friended me, and have friended back.
(no subject) - soophelia on January 7th, 2012 02:30 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - isiscaughey on January 7th, 2012 03:25 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - soophelia on January 8th, 2012 01:31 pm (UTC) (Expand)