Sherlock 2.1 Scandal in Belgravia (review)

[fannishliss]

[84] Sherlock 2.1 A Scandal in Belgravia was released yesterday to public television stations in the US, who showed it on Masterpiece Mystery, and my husband and I watched it in realtime. (Idk what bits were left out, it seemed to work pretty well.)

I love spoilers, so I already knew most of what happens -- I recently read a fic that apparently followed it almost word for word!  So there were not too many surprises. 

What I loved about the episode was watching it alongside my husband and for the two of us to compare our reactions to The Woman, The Virgin, and the Flatmate. 

Spoilers under cut.



I had no trouble with making Irene a Domme.  It's better than an opera singer in this day and age, and probably, better than a rockstar as well.  I found some of the shots pretty expectable and cheap (glossy red fingernails, her assistance painting her lips, the way she stroked Sherlock with her crop).  But I thought the actor, Lara Pulver, did a great job with the character she was given.  I thought she created a nice amount of heat with Sherlock in their one scene together, where he was taking her pulse. 

One thing about this version of Irene Adler which bothered me, is the question of making her one of Moriarty's tools instead of a free agent.  In the books, as I understand it, Irene was on her own, and she stood up to Sherlock on her own, and some people have thought for many years that Nero Wolfe was Irene and Sherlock's child!  which I think is fun.  Here, Moffat rewrites Irene into a blackmailer who is propelled into a much more dangerous world of terrorism and counter-terrorism.  He also makes her run scared before Moriarty in terms of faking her own death, tricking Sherlock, and eventually, fleeing to Karachi -- where she would have been killed if Sherlock hadn't tracked her down and intervened.  I literally haven't seen anyone complaining about that ending -- which to me is the absolute worst moment of the whole thing --- if we are supposed to be so proud that she stymies Sherlock by parading herself before him in the nude (I both liked and disliked the comparison of all the clues he deduced from John's appearances vs the ??? he got from her nudity, more on that below) --- then does no one have anything to say about the fact that she is literally on her knees, covered head to toe in black, and about to be beheaded, when Sherlock swoops in upon her ultimate damselling???

In a lot of ways I don't mind that Sherlock unlocks the code on her phone... he is supposed to be the super-genius after all, and we do get a kick out of seeing her play him.  She's very good, and I like that.  What I don't like, is that we get to see Sherlock deduce Irene's attraction in her blown pupils and speedy pulse -- but we don't get to see her deduce the opposite case for him -- because we can't be sure he isn't just high on the game, like usual.  She is reduced to a sexual creature in a way that he isn't, which does bother me, MORE SO because her professed lesbianism is erased.  He gets to keep his presumed asexuality -- but she is het for him!!  Argh, please. 

In terms of John vs Irene, I liked it.  I liked John defending his heterosexuality (poor guy, he really still believes he's not in love with Sherlock!!)  and I liked Irene calling him on it.  I like the way John is constantly seething over Irene in the background, counting the texts (erotic sigh #57!)  and the way he is always so stalwart and protective of Sherlock.  I simply love John Watson for his love of Sherlock, whether it is slashy or bromantic or whatever.  John Watson kicks all the asses, and Irene's is no exception.  [oh and btw, when the three of them all simultaneously kicked ass, I thought Sherlock was pretty excited there!!  I know I was. :D]

So that's why, in no undercertain terms, I am still a slash girl.  Because! In this telling, Irene Adler is NOT A REAL GIRL (she's Moriarty's puppet, attempting to puppeteer SH) and John Watson is MOST DEFINITELY A REAL BOY.  Given, that Sherlock is the love object (objections? anyone?  just take it as a given)  then Watson trumps Adler in about a million ways.  John is steadfast, loyal, true.  He cares for Sherlock, literally.  He lives with him and puts up with his crap.  He deals with his crazy brother and his crazy archenemies.  He is suitably impressed at Sherlock's genius and unafraid to decry him when he is bad and awful to Molly.  All Irene has is one moment of Sherlock showing off, and several whiles of him being quite distracted, which, as John says, is par for the course for Sherlock.  I don't think this version succeeded in making Irene Adler all that compelling.  They chose instead to represent her with ????? -- the mystery of the femme fatale.  As a real woman myself, I'm not that interested in women being portrayed as unknowable and inscrutable.  I'd rather get into the heart of John and live there, watching Sherlock, being amazed and perturbed and heartbroken and wholly alive with him -- than to be this painted enigma who pulls Sherlock for a moment into her dance. 

If, after all this time, people are still wondering why Slash continues to trump Het on the internetz, this is why: our media don't give us legitimate women heroes to pair against our men heroes.  We still need to be out there, demanding better women characters -- women MAIN characters, women heroes, whose stories represent the lives of real women.  This is why I ship Doctor/Rose -- because Rose is a real girl, and she moves universes, and that is AWESOME.  This is why is ship Lisa/Dean -- because Lisa was bigger than the darkness in Dean, strong enough to make room for him in her heart and in her family.  And it's why I was so blown away by the second XFiles movie -- because Scully is so smart, so strong, and even though Mulder's seedy and hiding out, Scully's still keeping on.  WOMEN CHARACTERS, PEOPLE.  REAL ONES.  The women of Firefly.  Martha Jones, Donna Noble, Sarah Jane Smith --- and as much as I'm kind of fond of Amy, I was not fond AT ALL of the Doctor when he deleted the version of her that survived all those terrifying years alone. 

Ahem.  So, anyways, we liked the episode and rank it #2 after A Study in Pink (which we really liked a lot).   We can still like something even if we have a lot of problems with it.  I liked it.  But I am gonna keep on shipping John/Sherlock even harder now. Just keep on protesting too much, John. You're so cute when that obnoxious text alert sighs in Sherlock's pocket!

Comments

[fogsblue.livejournal.com]

Just a small note, I found with the episodes of Sherlock (and don't get me wrong, I really do love the show) in the second season especially (though also the first), you could tell which episode was written by which writer. Specifically, Moffat's episodes tend to be more identifiable, his portrayal of Irene Adler fits with many of his female characters. That said, I still wish he'd give DW to someone else and be more involved in Sherlock

Some parts of the episode were really good, I mean, I likes Sherlock being a littler stumped and I'm with you, I adore John and the way he loves (romance/bromance/whatever) Sherlock. It's such a brilliantly written relationship.

And I completely and utterly agree with you about women heroes, there's so few of them that aren't pushed into secondary roles, who are made into full, 3-dimensional people. And it's a shame. Personally, I'd love it if some writers *cough*Moffat*cough* could have some lessons from Joss Whedon on writing women.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

I love John, so that makes me interested in Sherlock. If not for Martin Freeman I probably wouldn't be so into it!

I like women heroes a lot, and I always am willing to give it a go -- I did like the actor very well, so that was a plus. She gave Irene a lot of energy and had good chemistry with Sherlock, so that part of it did work for me.

[fogsblue.livejournal.com]

Agree with you, John is most definitely more of an interesting character to me personally as well. Martin Freeman is brilliant as him.

I love a show that has women heroes (I blame Whedon, I got through my teenage years with Buffy), give any show a go, but there's a distinct appeal when women are given a real story/character etc. I think the actress was excellent and had a lot of chemistry, I just think she could have been so much better if she wasn't relegated to being an object/tool instead of a character.

(And if that makes no sense I apologise, it's 6am and I should sleep).

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

I also liked Buffy, Xena, Star Trek, and I was a huge XFiles fan. It's a bit strange that Supernatural, my all-time biggest fandom, is the story of two brothers -- but it's also true that the women of Supernatural (though the story isn't about them) are AMAZING.

I've read so many stories and metas about the Irene Adler episode that were all playing out in my head while I watched it. It was pretty surreal!

[six.livejournal.com]

This episode renewed the Is Steven (https://theidiotboxx.wordpress.com/2012/01/02/am-i-a-real-person-stephen-moffat-says-no/) Moffat sexist (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/03/sherlock-sexist-steven-moffat) debates on the interwebs.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

there was so much explosion on the internetz when it first aired that I was very curious to view it for myself and to ponder my reaction. Actually I do think that Moffat's scripts tend to play out in predictably sexist ways; that's my considered opinion and has been for a long time. I'm always hopeful that he'll do better!

[bleodswean.livejournal.com]

Nice little review and I really enjoyed your thought processes. I agree - with all of it! Although I'm a Sherlock/Molly girl, too....and I thought the Christmas scene was gorgeous - heartfelt, heartbreaking and well played.

I especially love your contrast of John - Irene here. John's dialogue, facial expressions, and concern for Sherlock really painted Irene in a very dim light. I was a bit confused by that the first time through as I thought I should feel more sympathetic to Irene....

And hey, you know how men view lesbianism. *gag* Sorry to see such stereotypes in this otherwise great show.

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

John's concern is always for Sherlock first, which I love about him, and I thought his reactions to Irene were priceless.

The scene with Molly was heart-rending. It was kind of Sherlock at least to apologize. I think it was John's gaze that made him try.

Have you been watching SPN at all? The ep called "The Girl with the Dungeons and Dragons Tattoo" actually made me burst into tears, I was so impressed by the Girl. :D

Part 1 (because my post was too long.)

[betawho.livejournal.com]

I wasn't thrilled that in the end, (all through the show really) Irene was portrayed as being sexually fascinated with Sherlock. In the original story she never was, she admired his intellect, but she flat out told him she had a better man who loved her. (Since she actually got married in the story, Sherlock, in disguise, was actually the witness to her wedding.)

So, no, just making Irene Adler a dominatrix who was sexually turned on by the hero was not what I'd ever associated that character with. Part of what fascinated Sherlock about her, was that always before, he had had a low opinion of female intelligence, and this woman not only proved him wrong, but bested him.

Irene in Scandal in Belgravia was portrayed as intelligent, but not really a woman to be respected. And, in the end, she ended up as the damsel in distress, caught out and helpless in a world of men, a pawn between two powerful men, one of which belittles her because of her perceived emotionalism. (Which is the exact opposite of how Adler was portrayed in Doyle's stories. Adler there, was the calm, rational one, and that is one reason why she caught Sherlock off guard. It's not what he expected of a woman. The story even goes on to have Watson say that before Sherlock met Adler he was wont to disparage women, but afterward he didn't. Adler gave him a new respect for women, and had a place of honor in his drawer of memories, always afterwards being depicted as "The Woman" not because he had the hots for her, and not because she seduced him, but because she was his analytical equal. Something he had previously thought impossible.)

Had the original Adler merely seduced Sherlock and used him to sell him out to Moriarty then been put on the run from Moriarty and needed Sherlock to save her. She wouldn't have been a memorable character at all. Because "woman thinks herself clever and gets in trouble and needs a man to rescue her" is such an old trope that it's one of the first stories in the Bible.

I liked that they had Adler being her own woman. That she was portrayed as extremely intelligent and capable. But the inability to divorce a woman's "power" from her sexuality is one of the great limiting factors in a lot of women heroes. Moff is particularly prone to it.

Men are not required to be sexy to be powerful. They are not required to seduce their way into power. Or to use "nudity" to gain control over people.

I personally had a problem with that ???? scene, because there was plenty Sherlock could tell about her merely from the fact that she chose to confront him that way. Fully as much, and more psychologically important, than the clues he got from Watson's clothes. Adler was obviously a woman comfortable in her body, outragous and willing, even eager, to flout societal norms, to attempt to distract him with the oldest trick in the book without actually knowing enough about him to realize the tantilizing part of it would not be the image of her body, but the motivations behind her actions. She was nude, but she was wearing the armor of makeup and jewelry, so while she was presenting the "appearance" of vulnerability, she was decidedly not showing her "true" face. Her action proved she was aware of who he was, aware of his reputation, aware of his methods. It showed she "assumed" he would respond the way most other men did, and that she believed men were ruled by their baser instincts and would be blinded by them. She obviously had a plan, and something to hide. She was attempting to divert his attention (which he did notice and was mentioned in the story. And, frankly, that the safe combination was her measurements was enough to make me gag. Yet another example of her being portrayed as "a body" rather than as a clever intellect.)

Then, the idea at the end that she had based her lock code on his name meant that she was a weak, emotional female driven by her baser urges was a ridiculous leap of logic. Since it could simply have been the irony of his name containing the word "lock" that appealed to her, and that it would be something so close to him that he'd wrack his brains looking for a more clever solution and completely miss the one that literally was staring him in the face, his own name.

Re: Part 2 (because my post was too long.)

[betawho.livejournal.com]

The whole story boiled down to a not a battle of the sexes, but a battle of sex. It wasn't about Adler being a woman, it was about women being sexual creatures. Which is such an old trope it's insulting. It wasn't about a woman being sexually liberated, it was about a woman being a slave to her sexual nature.

There are any number of ways that the story could have portrayed Adler as an intelligent woman, a capable woman, a woman of insightful intellect, of analytical precision, of the ability to manipulate a man by his own strengths and weaknesses, AND be sexy. Without it being sex she used to do the manipulating.

Adler could have been a corporate executive, a movie star, a jet-setting playgirl, or a minor noblewoman in her own right. And still be as sexy as hell. Yet not be defined by her sexuality.

It would possibly have been more interesting to see Sherlock becoming enamored of a woman who obviously had not sexual interest in him. To see him realizing that here was a woman who could match him in all ways, only to realize it would never happen. Leaving her as "the one who got away."

And in the end, that's one reason why this story didn't work for me. Because, quintessentially, that is what Adler in Doyle's story originally was. The One Who Got Away. In Sherlock's "Alway's gets his man" life, it was an irony that the man who got away was a woman. But her gender was only truly important because it was something that made him underestimate her. And forced him to reevaluate one of his long held prejudices.

Which is something this modern story really didn't do. Rather, it reinforced those assumptions.

Yeah, yeah, rant, rant. I guess it wouldn't bother me so much if I hadn't enjoyed the original Irene Adler so much. A woman in Victorian times who lived her life her own way and managed to flout not just one powerful man, but two, and still managed to get away to live her "happily ever after."

Re: Part 2 (because my post was too long.)

[fannishliss.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you say here.

What happened to me was two-fold. 1, I was ready for the fail, because there was such an explosion when the ep was initially aired. 2, I am always ready for Moff to fail at women. Every so often he does a passing job, so I have to be ready for that possibility as well.

As my dad always used to say, Expect the worst and you will not be disappointed! It was just slightly better than I expected, so I was okay with it overall. I actually don't think that the show is the best show ever. Out of the first season, I liked the first ep very well, and the other two not as much. We'll see how the next two fare in my mind.

Thanks very much for sharing your thoughts!

Re: Part 2 (because my post was too long.)

[bleodswean.livejournal.com]

Fantabulous rant!!!

And this - thank the gods -

There are any number of ways that the story could have portrayed Adler as an intelligent woman, a capable woman, a woman of insightful intellect, of analytical precision, of the ability to manipulate a man by his own strengths and weaknesses, AND be sexy.

is why we have fanfic!!!