texts v textiles.
just a little more poking at my issues with 2.1 before 2.2 airs. ngl, i am a little worried about how that's going to play out. but whatever. i've come to terms with the fact that to enjoy television at all, i just need to let go and stop taking any part of it at all seriously.
so.
i have been turning asib over and over and i keep coming to the same conclusion. i liked it, but there is just this nagging feeling that it was not okay. i tried making a chart, but that didn't really get me anywhere
SHERLOCK 2X01 // A SCANDAL IN BELGRAVIA :
ALL FINE ;
BIT NOT GOOD ;
sherlock not knowing being able to tell john's girlfriends apart without stopping to think about it for a minute. he's an asshole. it's expected. from a character point of view, that's alright, if not attractive.
john not being able to recall which girlfriend is which. come on, bro. at least pretend you actually like them.
irene (and possibly john) acknowledging that sexuality that isn't at least a tad bit fluid is pretty damn rare. and that is fine. exceptions aren't invalidations.
those FUCKING FINGERNAILS. obviously they could be press-ons, but unless the quality of press-on nails has vastly improved in the last decade (i'm talking something miraculous here) i don't buy it. her whole presentation just screams pornstar lesbian. which does not fly with me.
everyone is in love with sherlock holmes.
there is actually nothing that goes in this box.
irene getting into a situation she can't handle because, to trot out a catchphrase, that's what people do.
irene and sherlock both know she owes him her life; he's the only one who knows he owes her his.
so what i think it comes down to is this. my problem is not with the story being told, but with how (and, i guess, why?) it's being told. not to go all death-of-the-author, but i can't really help it. look. it has been a week, and i'm still not entirely sure what it is i am trying to say. but i think it has to do with adaptations and expectations and how we all relate to the media we consume.
ugh ugh ugh, no. that's not really what i mean at all.
but okay look, it's like. selkie3 mentioned that they thought canon irene and sherlock irene were two different characters. and i think that's fair. i also think it's an important distinction to draw if i/we/whatev are going to get anywhere. this irene adler is a different person. her motivations are different, her methods are different, and the story she's a central part of is different. so applying the same standards to her as to the canon irene adler is both useless and ridiculous. the story being told here is not a scandal in bohemia just like the story in tgg wasn't the bruce-partington plans (not least of which because it was half the naval treaty, but that's really neither here nor there), so expecting it to turn out the same doesn't work. additionally, allying her with moriarty moves her comfortably into villain territory which of course is setting her up for a fall. because that's how heroes v villains works. the villains might temporarily triumph but in the end, you know it's always going to be the guys in the white hats. always.
the problem with this is that it's too easy. it's too obvious. the reason a scandal in bohemia was interesting and the reason why irene adler is such a fan favorite is because, to put it simply, she wasn't a villain. she simply wasn't holmes's client. this put her on the other side of the fence whilst simultaneously making her someone to root for. obviously holmes was going to do the job he'd been engaged to do, but the fact that she was able to outwit him in the end was upsetting to neither him, nor to the reader. i feel like the granada series handled this really well. the first scene sets her up as a sympathetic character; a victim of an attempted robbery. afterwards, you find out that the burglars are actually agents of the king, who is the actual client in the story. after that, you find out that the king is a prize douche and he deserves whatever he gets. which, in the end, is nothing more than having been stupid enough to ditch irene. who is awesome. and classier than everyone else.
we don't get that with sherlock. we get some tired old femme fatale tropes, up to and including encoding lesbian sexuality in the most accessible, film noir way possible. if, historically, there is a lesbian "type" (and there is), this is it. it a wonder they didn't also make her a vampire, although they sort of alluded to that when kate asked what color lipstick irene wanted and she replied 'blood'.
so there's that.
as to the ending, of irene not getting an unqualified win, well. i don't really know what to say. i think, unpopular fandom opinion time, that i don't have a problem with the ending as such. although, on the other hand, i have a massive problem with the ending. you think this is confusing for you? this is what goes back and forth in my actual head! but basically, i do not have a problem with the fact that irene apparently gets into some trouble she can't talk her way out of. that happens all the time. it was sort of the theme of this entire episode; people out of their depth. the problem i have here is that there is no way to resolve it that isn't awful.
(here is the women's studies reader part) women are in the shitty position of having to perform twice as spectacularly as men in order to be considered (generally by men, but also by other women) nearly as competent. and they can't ask for help, because that is w-e-a-k. just like a woman. so when they fail, which they will because that is an impossible standard, they are not just failing personally, they are failing on a social level. really letting the side down. what this means for irene adler is: when she gets into a spot she can't think her way out of, she can either fail on her own merits or ask for sherlock's help. neither of these choices really says anything great about her. so. while i don't think this situation reflects poorly on her as a character at all or in any way makes her not a strong, clever woman/character, what i do hate is the fact that anyone found it necessary from a narrative perspective to introduce this shitty catch-22 in the first place. there was never going to be any satisfactory resolution. and you knew it. you assholes.
another thing that bothers me about the ending is that they are essentially even after this. irene owes sherlock her life, and they both know it. but sherlock had previously owed her not just his life, but john's as well from when she phoned moriarty at the pool. i have no doubt sherlock has figured this out. so it's fine that he repays her. but the fact is, she doesn't know (we can assume. because why would she?) so she still thinks he is one up on her. and that's not okay.
and then, some potentially spoilery thoughts re: 2.3 (not that i have read anything about the episode, so DON'T TELL ME. i cannot stress this enough. just general knowledge of the canon as it might pertain to this adaptation).
so in the canon, professor moriarty was essentially a gentleman criminal. obviously he did some bad shit, but he did it in such a charmingly refined way. so, when he allowed holmes to write watson a note at reichenbach before they had it out, you could really believe that he was being considerate of this adversary he had so much respect for. certainly he'd burn down his rooms and shove him over a waterfall, but he had no problem letting him say goodbye to his friend. such is the dual nature of professor moriarty.
jim moriarty, in this adaptation, is nothing similar. he is cruel as hell. i have no doubt that he'll let sherlock text/email/call john. in fact, he might insist on it. but this isn't 1891 you guys. john isn't going to hike up a trail and find a notebook on some rocks. with instantaneous communication, he is going to know that his bff is dying/about to die and there is no way he can get there fast enough to stop it. and sherlock is going to know john knows this. and jim is going to know that sherlock knows john knows. and if he wanted to burn sherlock's heart out, i don't think there's really a better way.
plus. after that, when s3 finally rolls around, john's gon' be pissed (furious, not drunk. though possibly both. i would be).
ALL MY CREYS D:
tl;dr.
so.
i have been turning asib over and over and i keep coming to the same conclusion. i liked it, but there is just this nagging feeling that it was not okay. i tried making a chart, but that didn't really get me anywhere
SHERLOCK 2X01 // A SCANDAL IN BELGRAVIA :
ALL FINE ;
BIT NOT GOOD ;
sherlock not knowing being able to tell john's girlfriends apart without stopping to think about it for a minute. he's an asshole. it's expected. from a character point of view, that's alright, if not attractive.
john not being able to recall which girlfriend is which. come on, bro. at least pretend you actually like them.
irene (and possibly john) acknowledging that sexuality that isn't at least a tad bit fluid is pretty damn rare. and that is fine. exceptions aren't invalidations.
those FUCKING FINGERNAILS. obviously they could be press-ons, but unless the quality of press-on nails has vastly improved in the last decade (i'm talking something miraculous here) i don't buy it. her whole presentation just screams pornstar lesbian. which does not fly with me.
everyone is in love with sherlock holmes.
there is actually nothing that goes in this box.
irene getting into a situation she can't handle because, to trot out a catchphrase, that's what people do.
irene and sherlock both know she owes him her life; he's the only one who knows he owes her his.
so what i think it comes down to is this. my problem is not with the story being told, but with how (and, i guess, why?) it's being told. not to go all death-of-the-author, but i can't really help it. look. it has been a week, and i'm still not entirely sure what it is i am trying to say. but i think it has to do with adaptations and expectations and how we all relate to the media we consume.
ugh ugh ugh, no. that's not really what i mean at all.
but okay look, it's like. selkie3 mentioned that they thought canon irene and sherlock irene were two different characters. and i think that's fair. i also think it's an important distinction to draw if i/we/whatev are going to get anywhere. this irene adler is a different person. her motivations are different, her methods are different, and the story she's a central part of is different. so applying the same standards to her as to the canon irene adler is both useless and ridiculous. the story being told here is not a scandal in bohemia just like the story in tgg wasn't the bruce-partington plans (not least of which because it was half the naval treaty, but that's really neither here nor there), so expecting it to turn out the same doesn't work. additionally, allying her with moriarty moves her comfortably into villain territory which of course is setting her up for a fall. because that's how heroes v villains works. the villains might temporarily triumph but in the end, you know it's always going to be the guys in the white hats. always.
the problem with this is that it's too easy. it's too obvious. the reason a scandal in bohemia was interesting and the reason why irene adler is such a fan favorite is because, to put it simply, she wasn't a villain. she simply wasn't holmes's client. this put her on the other side of the fence whilst simultaneously making her someone to root for. obviously holmes was going to do the job he'd been engaged to do, but the fact that she was able to outwit him in the end was upsetting to neither him, nor to the reader. i feel like the granada series handled this really well. the first scene sets her up as a sympathetic character; a victim of an attempted robbery. afterwards, you find out that the burglars are actually agents of the king, who is the actual client in the story. after that, you find out that the king is a prize douche and he deserves whatever he gets. which, in the end, is nothing more than having been stupid enough to ditch irene. who is awesome. and classier than everyone else.
we don't get that with sherlock. we get some tired old femme fatale tropes, up to and including encoding lesbian sexuality in the most accessible, film noir way possible. if, historically, there is a lesbian "type" (and there is), this is it. it a wonder they didn't also make her a vampire, although they sort of alluded to that when kate asked what color lipstick irene wanted and she replied 'blood'.
so there's that.
as to the ending, of irene not getting an unqualified win, well. i don't really know what to say. i think, unpopular fandom opinion time, that i don't have a problem with the ending as such. although, on the other hand, i have a massive problem with the ending. you think this is confusing for you? this is what goes back and forth in my actual head! but basically, i do not have a problem with the fact that irene apparently gets into some trouble she can't talk her way out of. that happens all the time. it was sort of the theme of this entire episode; people out of their depth. the problem i have here is that there is no way to resolve it that isn't awful.
(here is the women's studies reader part) women are in the shitty position of having to perform twice as spectacularly as men in order to be considered (generally by men, but also by other women) nearly as competent. and they can't ask for help, because that is w-e-a-k. just like a woman. so when they fail, which they will because that is an impossible standard, they are not just failing personally, they are failing on a social level. really letting the side down. what this means for irene adler is: when she gets into a spot she can't think her way out of, she can either fail on her own merits or ask for sherlock's help. neither of these choices really says anything great about her. so. while i don't think this situation reflects poorly on her as a character at all or in any way makes her not a strong, clever woman/character, what i do hate is the fact that anyone found it necessary from a narrative perspective to introduce this shitty catch-22 in the first place. there was never going to be any satisfactory resolution. and you knew it. you assholes.
another thing that bothers me about the ending is that they are essentially even after this. irene owes sherlock her life, and they both know it. but sherlock had previously owed her not just his life, but john's as well from when she phoned moriarty at the pool. i have no doubt sherlock has figured this out. so it's fine that he repays her. but the fact is, she doesn't know (we can assume. because why would she?) so she still thinks he is one up on her. and that's not okay.
and then, some potentially spoilery thoughts re: 2.3 (not that i have read anything about the episode, so DON'T TELL ME. i cannot stress this enough. just general knowledge of the canon as it might pertain to this adaptation).
so in the canon, professor moriarty was essentially a gentleman criminal. obviously he did some bad shit, but he did it in such a charmingly refined way. so, when he allowed holmes to write watson a note at reichenbach before they had it out, you could really believe that he was being considerate of this adversary he had so much respect for. certainly he'd burn down his rooms and shove him over a waterfall, but he had no problem letting him say goodbye to his friend. such is the dual nature of professor moriarty.
jim moriarty, in this adaptation, is nothing similar. he is cruel as hell. i have no doubt that he'll let sherlock text/email/call john. in fact, he might insist on it. but this isn't 1891 you guys. john isn't going to hike up a trail and find a notebook on some rocks. with instantaneous communication, he is going to know that his bff is dying/about to die and there is no way he can get there fast enough to stop it. and sherlock is going to know john knows this. and jim is going to know that sherlock knows john knows. and if he wanted to burn sherlock's heart out, i don't think there's really a better way.
plus. after that, when s3 finally rolls around, john's gon' be pissed (furious, not drunk. though possibly both. i would be).
ALL MY CREYS D:
tl;dr.