frith_in_thorns | on sherlock

I've just finished watching the BBC's Sherlock. And I have some thoughts, so I shall proceed to inflict them on you all.

Basically, I'm massively conflicted about this show. To start with, it is oh-so-very pretty, especially Sherlock himself. I usually identify far more with Watson but didn't in this incarnation, which surprised me, but I loved the snappy dialogue between the two and basically most of their interactions, although the 'ha ha we seem gay but WE AREN'T WE AREN'T WE AREN'T' got old very quickly.

Speaking of that... the bit about John's sister, rather than brother, was nice and I liked seeing Sherlock get put off his stride by something he hadn't anticipated. (Although just mentioning gay people and not showing them doesn't get all that many points in my book.) But then so much fail in the third episode - "he's gay because he's well-groomed and I could see the band of his underpants above his trousers" - that was just stupid, even though it did turn out to be Moriaty messing with Sherlock. I already knew, through stuff I picked up in various places, that Jimmy would be Moriaty, but I probably wouldn't have guessed otherwise. Didn't like him - someone said that he seemed to be doing a Graham Norton impression, and I'd say that's a good comparison. He was just irritating rather than intimidating, to my mind at least, which did rather spoil the suspense of the final scene. Wasn't sold at all on him being a criminal mastermind. I didn't specifically notice him being Irish (I have no ear for differentiating accents), but having been told that I agree with

teh_elb on the probematic stuff behind him being an Irish bomber.

And about problematic stuff. Where the hell were the women? We had a couple of Evil Bitches (like Donovan), damels in distress (like Sarah), and ones who existed only to cater to the men (like Mrs Hudsen). All of them had only tiny moments on screen in which they were either dismissed or saved by the men. None of them had actuall recognisable characters beyond stereotype. I get that this was an adaption of a series of stories set in Victorian times, in which women weren't really expected to appear, but that's no excuse. They managed perfectly well with switching a watch for a mobile phone (Watson's apparent brother thing), but couldn't write in any good female characters? Couldn't, say, make Lestrade female? Seriously? Also everyone went on and on about how the 'woman in pink' had been having an affair, but so had at least one of the male victims in that episode, and one in the next episode, and no one really remarked on those - and when they did it was because it was relevant to the plot. Not just to reinforce how ~wicked the woman had been (and the unspoken 'she was asking to be murdered', which is pretty easy subtext to read).

And good God, the treatment of the Chinese characters in the second episode was pretty disturbing. Look at how ~exotic they are, with their funny clothes and funny mobs and funny circuses!! Ugh. I was also quite turned off by Watson's psychosomatic pain which apparently had been pretty severly affecting his life but obviously wasn't ~real so he should just get over it. And look, he did! Let's give another bit of amunition to people who think that if something's 'just in your head' you should be able to ~think yourself better!

So, yes, very conflicted - I have to say on balance that overall my opinion of this show is pretty negative. But I did really like Sherlock himself, and would love some really good h/c featuring him. And I'll probably be watching next season, if only to see how the cliffhanger pays off (I'm hoping for an explosion...). I just hope that the writers can get their act together and think a little more about what it is they're actually writing.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The absence of women is my biggest problem with it as well. Sarah had some promising moments but generally just faded into the background as 'generic love interest' and beyond that there was really nothing. I was especially annoyed by the bitchy female detective who served only to be a bitch and for Sherlock to make an ~hilarious~ joke about her giving the jerky policeman a blow job. Colour me unimpressed.

Omg Lestrade as a woman would have been brilliant. Why did they not think of that?! *sigh* It is a problem, I think, that was almost sadly to be expected when you have a show based on a Victorian text that is pretty of its time with the casual sexism/ignoring of women, written by men (awesome men who are often very good writers, but still suffering from the all-too-typical problem of forgetting the existence of women in the universe) who are crazy fanboys of the text and so just never think of developing those oh, what do you call them...oh yeah, female characters.

Hopefully it will improve next year though. Generally I was impressed with the writing and the modernisation and the first episode especially was excellent. They did just have a lot of issues with casual sexism, racism and homophobia via stereotype. Which is tragic.

Anyway, will stop wittering now!
xxx

Edited 2010-09-16 21:20 (UTC)

Oh yes, the 'scrubbing floors' joke was hilarious. Not.

Seriously, Lestrade-as-woman would not have even needed to have an altered script! Unless, of course, they then felt the need to comment on "look at me, I'm a woman". I've talked to a couple of RL people about it and have been told that, basically, I should just suck it up and accept it because the source material doesn't really have women in, but that is just a terrible argument (and to my mind also quite offensive, since it suggests that our attitudes have yet to move on from Victorian times). As you say, the modernisation was very impressive, which just highlights the fails even more.

I did also like all the many references to the source material which were thrown in, though, which I forgot to mention above. That was lovely for a book-geek :D

The most annoying thing for me was Molly Hooper (the coroner). Her sole reason for existence seemed to be as someone Sherlock could callously dismiss and then end up dating Moriarty, ha ha.

And yes, Moriarty had nowhere near the presence of his literary counterpart.

Argh, yes, that was very frustrating. Although Mrs Hudson did annoy me much more - I've known people who get utterly fixated on a crush, so I can excuse that (extremely reluctantly, but still) - whereas Mrs Hudson spent her entire time running after the two men and doing their every bidding while being treated like a servant.

My thoughts on Moriarty while I was watching can be summed up as "REALLY?".

Ah, thanks for linking me to this!

I never considered the implications of Moriarty's Irish accent... Maybe I'm too used to seeing characters of Celtic extraction who are violent and treacherous. And whoops, Moriarty's alias was"Jim." I have no idea why I thought it was "Iain", except that one's my dad's name and the other my uncle's name. Now I feel bad for not even remembering the names of the marginalized characters.

My pet peeve was the treatment of Mrs. Hudson. I'm desperately hoping that she'll move away from the role of mother/servant/buffoon, and turn out to be a master criminal. I can dream...

the 'ha ha we seem gay but WE AREN'T WE AREN'T WE AREN'T' got old very quickly.

Yes, yes, YES. Ugh, it was funny the first time. After that it just seemed homophobic. Like the notion of gayness is only brought into the script as an awkward joke or as a kind of "Surprise!" moment.

Ugh, it was funny the first time. After that it just seemed homophobic.

Exactly, because clearly it would be a very very terrible thing for someone to think that you might be gay. >_<

I was actually clenching my teeth when Mrs Hudson was on screen, by the third episode. I assume she was meant to be comedy, but I found her portrayal acutely painful rather than funny. Maybe she'll snap and try to murder both of them...

It was a friend who pointed out the Irish thing to me, and I do think she has a point. I'm not really up on Irish stereotypes, but she is and apparently he hits a lot of them. (I was wondering if he was who you meant with 'Iain' :P)

I am really, really hoping that this show improves next season, because towards the start especially it has such potential and it's a real shame to see it not fulfilled!

Maybe she'll snap and try to murder both of them...

With poisoned custard creams! :-D

(Hi, sorry to come bursting in, here from your comment on ontd_f)

I read the thing with Jim/Moriarty a little differently -- the show points out after the reveal that Sherlock's deductions are not always reasonable and that his preconceptions can lead him astray. It still made me really uncomfortable to watch, though, especially because of the LOL NO HOMO running joke.

The WE AREN'T GAY thing also felt super shoehorned-in; I can see how Mrs. Hudson might have mistaken them for boyfriends, soooort of, but everyone else? Straight dudes who are friends go out and do stuff together all the time without being questioned about their sexuality, so what's the deal with every person they meet immediately being all "so, you guys doin' it or what?"

tbh I was desperately hoping Molly would turn out to be Moriarty, partially because I hated how the crush was handled, because it would have been an equally good lesson in the fallibility of Sherlock's powers, and because then we could call her Mollyarty and I love ridiculous nicknames. (Also, I really hated how they portrayed Moriarty; he wasn't scary or intimidating in the slightest.)

And yeah, all the women were handled really poorly. I was really disappointed because for a bit in the Orientalism episode I thought they were leading up to Sarah doing something clever and getting them onto the right track, but that never happened, alas. I don't think Donovan will ever grow an actual personality besides meanie-face persecuting bitch, either.

(No problem! Hi!)

Yes, I don't think that I would have reacted anywhere near as strongly to the Jim thing if there hadn't been three episodes of "OMG NO GAYZ HERE" previously. As it was I didn't think of it being about highlighting Sherlock's preconceptions until quite a while afterwards - I was trying to decide whether the writers were trying to say "gay people are out to TRAP straight people into relationships" or "people who present as gay are actually criminal masterminds" or "isn't it funny how Molly was so desperate for Sherlock that she ended up dating a gay man without realising it". (Obviously I know they weren't actually going for any of these, at least I hope not!)

I'd have thought it would be the reverse - two gay men on a date who weren't engaging in PDAs would likely be considered by most people to just be friends hanging out. I really don't know why the show kept labouring a joke that wasn't terribly funny in the first place.

I love "Mollyarty"! XD Maybe she is actually controlling Jim and getting him to speak for her, after drugging first to get him high...no?

I don't think Donovan will ever grow an actual personality besides meanie-face persecuting bitch

You forgot "slutty" in there. Ugh. :(

Heh, actually, "isn't it funny how Molly was so desperate for Sherlock that she ended up dating a gay man without realising it" is pretty much exactly what I thought the show was aiming for. Which, a) makes me want Mollyarty that much more, and b) is super gross :c

Maybe they're going to make a big reveal about either Sherlock or John really truly being gay (ha, no, no they're not) and this is all a lead-up to that. :/ one can hope.

Jim is actually Molly's cousin or close childhood friend or something and he's doing her a favor by pretending to be Moriarty; she's masterminding this whole thing to lure Sherlock into complacency. Now that he thinks he knows what Moriarty is all about, Molly can enact her true Cunning Plan. Even if Sherlock makes his way through the first layer of deception her true goals are still hidden. *adjusts tinhat*

You forgot "slutty" in there.

Oh yeah. Shameless hussy, sex is for men! Just, blargh.

on sherlock

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject