I'm Team Moffat, or, Why I've Been Such a Pill on Twitter
So, I've majorly been getting into the BBC Sherlock series lately and I love it. I think it remixes and modernizes the Doyle stories in a way that feels organic and I love the writing and direction (although the second episode of the first season kind of sucked) and Benedict Cumberbatch is great, etc. I like it so much I have behaved badly, in that I have spent a lot of my squee admittedly bashing the Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movies. Like ... I have gotten in a few arguments on ffa and stuff like that.
But I feel bad about Internet arguments, even though these have been relatively stress-free. So I figured I'd write about why I'm so eager to drink the haterade.
Here's the thing. I didn't hate the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie. Oh, I didn't like it, but I didn't hate it. I'm not someone who's addicted to watching bad films/shlock, but I can easily name ten movies I think are worse. There are things I even liked about the movie. I think Jude Law was a very good Watson. I liked the boxing scene (especially with the Dubliners' cover of "Rocky Road to Dublin" playing over it). I saw the Ho Yay. I liked the Ho Yay. It wasn't completely irredeemable.
But I had two major problems with the first film. The first was the pacing of the movie. I hated how it was so THINGS MUST HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. Even scenes that should have been subdued/slower, like the engagement dinner or Holmes fiddling with his violin, felt like Ritchie was trying to race through them. It was like he was injected with the Crank drug, and if he didn't fuck the audience in the street they would die.
Also ... look, I like Robert Downey Jr. I liked him in the Iron Man movies a lot. He was not a good Holmes. I'm not sure if the fault is more his or the writers, but I do not get how people particularly liked his portrayal or thought he was a fun guy, because the performance came off to me as mopey and petulant. And Holmes can be mopey and petulant at times, but that's not all he is. And to watch a whole movie of Holmes going "Why does Watson like women? Why do people not do what I want? Meh meh meh," was SO grating.
I went into that movie expecting to enjoy it and came out horribly disappointed. The opposite was true of the Sherlock series. What I like so much about Cumberbatch's performance is that his Sherlock Holmes actually gets excited about things and enjoys things. Whereas if Downey has to solve anything it's all "Ok, I'll do it because I'm a genius but I'm still completely bummed."
But, whatever, people have different tastes and I get that. What I don't get is how the conversation about the differences between these two portrayals of the Holmes stories turns when social justice gets thrown into the mix, because I feel like people are willing to handwave the problematic elements of the Ritchie movies in a way they don't deserve. I saw someone (you know who, probably) run the Oscar winners of that year under a social justice microscope -- oh, it's all so white-middle class fantasy and where are the women, etc. -- and then talk about how they were going off to watch a movie with two white, straight leads again. I mean, I understand that people sometimes want to appease their ids, but come on.
And now I usually see Sherlock get more shit about this than the Ritchie movies and ... [sigh]
Okay, Doctor Who fans, look: I know you hate Moffat, and this is something I can't understand because I've only seen three Who episodes ever. Admittedly, he comes off as a dick in interviews. Also, I watched the first three X-Men movies occasionally thinking, "Fuck you, Bobby Drake, you helped ruin Animorphs," so I understand fandom grudges.
But what the fuck has he done that makes him a bigger enemy to social justice than the guy who remade Swept Away? Is River Song really a greater step backward for women than a bunch of guy's guy geezer movies?
But nevermind all that, because the truth is I haven't seen that stuff and that's more the principle of the thing. I have seen both Irene Adlers, though, and I will defend Moffat's/Lara Pulver's Irene over Ritchie's/Rachael McAdams' Irene any day. I know that people have a problem with the dominatrix thing, but I don't think the Sherlock Irene's power comes solely from sex by any means. She's incredibly smart, a good fighter, conniving. Even the sex worker thing is done for herself and not because she's a victim in someone else's employ who happens to fight well. It's true I watched her more recently, but she's more memorable. McAdams' Irene? I can barely remember. I remember she dressed up in a totally unconvincing male drag and shot a gun and had a moment with Holmes on a bridge. I kind of think there's a clear winner here.
Oh, and you know what else? MOFFAT DOESN'T KILL IRENE. Moffat doesn't off a character with a basis in Doyle's canon so we can have the chick from the Millennium Trilogy dress up as a gypsy, (Although I give the film credit for casting someone who is Roma.) because the rule of blockbusters is that we have a new woman every movie, okay? Because women characters are inherently disposable and we'll talk about how strong and badass they are in the run-up interviews but it's really about the men I mean hey let's be serious.
I just think that constant mentality is more destructive and insulting than Lara Pulver walking around with no clothes for a bit. (Plus, the episode also had Cumberbatch walking around for awhile in a sheet and then nearly losing it, so it's not like there isn't equal opportunity here.) It all gives me that depressing feeling that I'm hearing the same arguments about how slash is more feminist than writing women with agency. And I am not bashing slash here. The Holmes and Watson in BBC's Sherlock make me draw hearts on the screen. As compelling as I found Pulver (she's fascinating even without makeup!) I still love Holmes and Watson more (even if Watson was kind of crap in season one episode 2). But I jut think the idea that she's worse than what Ritchie did is bullshit.
I don't know. People like what they like and all that. My boyfriend likes the Ritchie films so it's not like if people like them I think OMG I HATE YOU. But I think in the case of social justice Ritchie and his films don't have the better standing at all.
But I feel bad about Internet arguments, even though these have been relatively stress-free. So I figured I'd write about why I'm so eager to drink the haterade.
Here's the thing. I didn't hate the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes movie. Oh, I didn't like it, but I didn't hate it. I'm not someone who's addicted to watching bad films/shlock, but I can easily name ten movies I think are worse. There are things I even liked about the movie. I think Jude Law was a very good Watson. I liked the boxing scene (especially with the Dubliners' cover of "Rocky Road to Dublin" playing over it). I saw the Ho Yay. I liked the Ho Yay. It wasn't completely irredeemable.
But I had two major problems with the first film. The first was the pacing of the movie. I hated how it was so THINGS MUST HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. Even scenes that should have been subdued/slower, like the engagement dinner or Holmes fiddling with his violin, felt like Ritchie was trying to race through them. It was like he was injected with the Crank drug, and if he didn't fuck the audience in the street they would die.
Also ... look, I like Robert Downey Jr. I liked him in the Iron Man movies a lot. He was not a good Holmes. I'm not sure if the fault is more his or the writers, but I do not get how people particularly liked his portrayal or thought he was a fun guy, because the performance came off to me as mopey and petulant. And Holmes can be mopey and petulant at times, but that's not all he is. And to watch a whole movie of Holmes going "Why does Watson like women? Why do people not do what I want? Meh meh meh," was SO grating.
I went into that movie expecting to enjoy it and came out horribly disappointed. The opposite was true of the Sherlock series. What I like so much about Cumberbatch's performance is that his Sherlock Holmes actually gets excited about things and enjoys things. Whereas if Downey has to solve anything it's all "Ok, I'll do it because I'm a genius but I'm still completely bummed."
But, whatever, people have different tastes and I get that. What I don't get is how the conversation about the differences between these two portrayals of the Holmes stories turns when social justice gets thrown into the mix, because I feel like people are willing to handwave the problematic elements of the Ritchie movies in a way they don't deserve. I saw someone (you know who, probably) run the Oscar winners of that year under a social justice microscope -- oh, it's all so white-middle class fantasy and where are the women, etc. -- and then talk about how they were going off to watch a movie with two white, straight leads again. I mean, I understand that people sometimes want to appease their ids, but come on.
And now I usually see Sherlock get more shit about this than the Ritchie movies and ... [sigh]
Okay, Doctor Who fans, look: I know you hate Moffat, and this is something I can't understand because I've only seen three Who episodes ever. Admittedly, he comes off as a dick in interviews. Also, I watched the first three X-Men movies occasionally thinking, "Fuck you, Bobby Drake, you helped ruin Animorphs," so I understand fandom grudges.
But what the fuck has he done that makes him a bigger enemy to social justice than the guy who remade Swept Away? Is River Song really a greater step backward for women than a bunch of guy's guy geezer movies?
But nevermind all that, because the truth is I haven't seen that stuff and that's more the principle of the thing. I have seen both Irene Adlers, though, and I will defend Moffat's/Lara Pulver's Irene over Ritchie's/Rachael McAdams' Irene any day. I know that people have a problem with the dominatrix thing, but I don't think the Sherlock Irene's power comes solely from sex by any means. She's incredibly smart, a good fighter, conniving. Even the sex worker thing is done for herself and not because she's a victim in someone else's employ who happens to fight well. It's true I watched her more recently, but she's more memorable. McAdams' Irene? I can barely remember. I remember she dressed up in a totally unconvincing male drag and shot a gun and had a moment with Holmes on a bridge. I kind of think there's a clear winner here.
Oh, and you know what else? MOFFAT DOESN'T KILL IRENE. Moffat doesn't off a character with a basis in Doyle's canon so we can have the chick from the Millennium Trilogy dress up as a gypsy, (Although I give the film credit for casting someone who is Roma.) because the rule of blockbusters is that we have a new woman every movie, okay? Because women characters are inherently disposable and we'll talk about how strong and badass they are in the run-up interviews but it's really about the men I mean hey let's be serious.
I just think that constant mentality is more destructive and insulting than Lara Pulver walking around with no clothes for a bit. (Plus, the episode also had Cumberbatch walking around for awhile in a sheet and then nearly losing it, so it's not like there isn't equal opportunity here.) It all gives me that depressing feeling that I'm hearing the same arguments about how slash is more feminist than writing women with agency. And I am not bashing slash here. The Holmes and Watson in BBC's Sherlock make me draw hearts on the screen. As compelling as I found Pulver (she's fascinating even without makeup!) I still love Holmes and Watson more (even if Watson was kind of crap in season one episode 2). But I jut think the idea that she's worse than what Ritchie did is bullshit.
I don't know. People like what they like and all that. My boyfriend likes the Ritchie films so it's not like if people like them I think OMG I HATE YOU. But I think in the case of social justice Ritchie and his films don't have the better standing at all.