[what EVEN]

[tellitslant]

Okay, seriously, what the fuck is up with remakes of Sherlock being completely incapable of dealing with Irene Adler? I mean, okay, the original "Scandal" is not exactly a model feminist text, but Irene is a pretty damn feminist character. And yet both revisions have decided to take away the best thing about her, her autonomy, and make her Moriarty's dogsbody? WHAT THE FUCK?

And honestly, I can't decide what I am more offended by: that inGame of Shadows she apparently dies offscreen so that Sherlock can, yes, HAVE MANPAIN? Or that in the Beeb version she is waiting to be beheaded, makes her last action a farewell to Sherlock, and then has to be rescued by him?

AND that doesn't even touch the fact that in the Beeb version, she self-identifies as gay and then meets Sherlock. And, you know, I get what Moffat was going for there, the ironic parallel between Watson, a straight man, and Irene, a gay woman, both in or desirous of intimate relationships with Sherlock. But there is so much weight to the whole "oops, I guess I'm not really gay" trope that it just does. not. work.

AND AGAIN, the idea of Irene Adler, queer dominatrix, is an absolutely fantastic one. So how does Moffat get it so goddamned wrong? That whole exchange of "I want you to remember me as the woman who beat you," after she's whaled on him with her riding crop, is just... so incredibly AWFUL. HA HA, "beat" has a double meaning! And what, women can only be powerful if they have a powerful sexuality? And guess what, it's funny, because she DOESN'T beat him in the way that matters AND she doesn't end up being powerful!

Seriously. The real Irene Adler puts one over on Sherlock and escapes and does it ALL BY HERSELF. WHY CHANGE IT SO SHE SUCKS AS A FEMALE CHARACTER. YOU HAVE A TEMPLATE RIGHT THERE. USE IT.

(And that's just the feminist fail. I haven't even touched on the whole "omg terrorism!!1!" plots, which were BOTH STUPID - the plane and whatever happened to Irene at the end. AND, seriously, Mycroft's plan was to blow up a plane full of dead people? He knows that forensic pathologists would have BEEN ABLE TO TELL that those people had been dead already, right? And also, were they embalmed? Or were they just decomposing in their seats as Sherlock stood there? THAT MAKES NO SENSE!)

Comments

[zulu]

Heh, I keep coming sort of close to maybe watching this adaptation, but then I read people's reaction posts, and I realize I am content to hold off!

[tellitslant]

You know, it's beautifully produced, it does some interesting things, but... yeah. I don't think you need to rush into it. :P

[oparu]

I want an Irene Adler movie. There's no reason she can't have her own film, be brilliant and funny and control her own destiny...

except of course that she's a woman.

[sophia_gratia]

{Durrr, I'm glad you guys made friends.}

I haven't seen the Guy Ritchie films, but I tell you what – Moff is on fucking notice.

Now, this problem has a simple solution. All you two need to do to fix the world is write plotty Helen Magnus/Irene Adler smut. Right? (No, tellitslant, no one has ever called me subtle.)

[oparu]

Some amazing corset to corset smut!!

Could be done...

[tellitslant]

Oh, I do like that idea. :D I mean, if Watson is real, there's no reason why there shouldn't be an Irene-analogue...

[tellitslant]

(PS subtlety is overrated)

[chaila]

Boo that sounds annoying, especially since all I've heard about either of these so far is people being pretty happy with them. :/

[bell]

Well, if I ever watch the series, I'm glad to have read this rant so that I'm forewarned. >___>

[bendingwind.livejournal.com]

I actually genuinely liked the part about Irene being gay and still feeling for Sherlock, because it highlights sexual and romantic fluidity, both of which I believe very strongly in. I think it was pretty clearly implied that she's involved with the maid/Irene!John, and she mentioned really wanting to see the errant princess again, and so there's no denial that she's still queer--merely that she loves Sherlock in spite of that. As a bisexual individual in a world where both the mainstream and the LGBT communities largely target, belittle or outright dismiss bisexuality or otherwise non-gender-normative sexual attraction, I was thrilled to see this on my television.

[tellitslant]

I did nearly comment on that, but I was in rant mode rather than thinky mode. :P While I think that's a totally valid reading and that bisexuality and fluidity are important things to have represented on television, I also think that the context of Irene's particular thing for Sherlock is more troubling than it is a positive portrayal. It's not just that she finds herself attracted to a man when she identifies as gay, but that he really becomes the centre of her world, to the detriment of everything else. It very nearly leads to her death, and then she is disempowered in her final scene. All that together and the way it is presented basically erased any positive aspects of the attraction for me.

Too, I think that the "Oh, I was a lesbian until I met the right man" trope is really overplayed in media. I have no doubt that there are bisexual people who believed they were only attracted to one gender until they met a particular person, but the history of being "turned straight" is so pervasive that it needs to be handled much better in order to not be problematic. I think it would have been fantastic had she been portrayed as bi or queer, but that she self-defines as gay and then acts in a way that rejects her own self-identification concerns me.

I think it might have been better in the hands of a better writer. Even a line or two making why she wanted him more explicit. Some intellect!porn, some discussion, something.

[bendingwind.livejournal.com]

Too, I think that the "Oh, I was a lesbian until I met the right man" trope is really overplayed in media.

But see, that wasn't really there at all, imo. She says that she is gay, not that she was. I didn't get any implication out of it whatsoever that she'd been "turned" straight, just that Sherlock was so remarkable that he was an exception (now, what that says about Sherlock as a problematic Gary Stu is another thing entirely...). In fact, she very clearly implies that she is still attracted to women--I think there was a definite ~thing going on with her maid/Irene!John, and she mentioned specifically wanting to see the Princess again and thus not wanting to use the photographs.

I don't have any strong feelings about Irene's portrayal from a feminist perspective because it depends on how you view her actions, but I honestly do not see anything wrong from a sexuality perspective. I like that she's sexually confident and to some degree portrayed as bisexual throughout--she certainly services men as well as women--and I think that taking one line (which I actually think is great line about how the individual can transcend sexuality) is just deliberately jumping at something because sexual fluidity is still threatening to a lot of people.

Beyond that, I think it's unfair to say that if someone identifies as gay they are then Not Allowed to like anyone of the opposite sex. I realize that there are troubling television tropes of this nature (and I'm sure you're far more aware of that than I), but I do not think that's what we're seeing here. I have a number of friends who are so far towards straight or gay on the scale that they identify as such, though they are aware that they are occasionally attracted to members of the same/opposite sex despite their general sexual orientation. I don't see any problem with choosing to identify as one thing even if it doesn't fit perfectly, since we still live in a world that requires labels, and especially because bisexuals are still heavily mistreated both by the mainstream and LGBT communities, and many bisexuals feel required to "choose a side".

The thing with Moffat, again in my opinion, is that he actually portrays very realistic relationships in many cases, but people are so used to the tropes of television that they immediately jump on him without regards to the nuances of what he's doing with his characters. I think he made it very clear that Irene is attracted to Sherlock not because of anything about his male body, but because of his mind (Again, what this says about Sherlock as a Gary Stu...). I truly do not see anything wrong with that from a sexuality perspective.

Even a line or two making why she wanted him more explicit. Some intellect!porn, some discussion, something.

I don't know if you missed the bit where he decodes the flight data in like one second flat, and Irene says she would "have him against the table until he begged for mercy, twice," but there's your line. It's a case of showing rather than telling, I confess, but that's a sign of a talented writer imo, not a poor one.

(Also this may turn out to be a case of tone and the internet, etc. etc. and I hope I don't come across as rude or anything.)

(And also I have to run off to work now, so I am going to have to stop proofreading for tone and hope for the best.)

[beccatoria.livejournal.com]

...I think I'm rapidly becoming very glad that I never understood why this was a fandom darling. Oh Moffat, how, how, how. You're turning into another RDM and I never thought that would happen and it makes me sad. Perhaps I might just skip this altogether. :/

In any event, thanks for the heads up/low down. I would have disliked watching this unprepared. o.O