Frith (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
frith_in_thorns) wrote2010-09-16 09:55 pm
frith_in_thorns) wrote2010-09-16 09:55 pm
Entry tags:
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
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!
no subject
With poisoned custard creams! :-D