The wait is almost over! Sherlock Series 4!

[CaveMum]

So excited! I couldn't wait for tomorrow to start a thread

Don't apologise - it flowed!

Sapphire fantastic essay.

Not sure I agree with it all but I can see why the portrayal of women gets people's backs up with the show. But the portrayal of the men in the show is equally awful really when examined closely.

Completely closed emotionally, having to punch each other to let their feelings out, unable to related 'normally' to most other people.

I love the whole thing though!

the portrayal of the men in the show is equally awful really when examined closely.

I don't disagree. I think a crucial difference is that the women are sidelined/minimised/killed off, whereas the men are the two stars and their behaviour is celebrated and rewarded – Sherlock's social ineptness is a joke; they 'win' and triumph over the baddies by punching and shooting and fighting.

I'd add that I thought the second ep of this series was oddly similar to the kind of 'torture porn' horror and crime films/shows that show you, lingeringly and in detail, attractive women being injured, tortured and attacked. Except in its case of course it lingered lovingly and titillatingly on the physical suffering of its leading man.

I'm sure that was written, directed and edited with a mind to the kind of Sherlock/Cumberbatch fangirl who tweets about how distressed she is at how her 'baby' is suffering, but watches agog nonetheless. Very exploitative.

Good points.

I agreed with a poster up thread who said that that it was one of the few murder/crime [in the loosest sense] shows that didn't rely on a naked tied up dead woman as the main plot device every week.

Ooh interesting stuff Sapphire. I agree with most of it and especially about Eurus. All of that fixed by a fraternal hug...

I guess there is a counter argument which would find flaws in all of the characters using some sort of rationale based on well worn gender tropes but I really appreciate the post.

I keep meaning to watch it a 2nd time around but haven't done so and am in no particular rush yet. I do hope it's not the end but when it does return it is given a fresh start and follows the path of the first 2 series rather than the jumble its become.

Eating, I responded to that post too. I am pleased to see any show that doesn't 100% rely on the physical suffering of women for drama, but would stand by my original response:

'I take your point, but there is more than one way to hate women.'

Ulysses, yes, I do take your point about the counter-argument, but I'd say the crucial difference is the 'flawed' women end up sidelined or dead, whereas the 'flawed' men continue to live, be celebrated and be the centre and indeed the point of the show.

There are some gloriously batshit conspiracy theories circulating on Tumblr among fans disappointed that Sherlock and John didn't get married and walk off into the sunset. My personal favourite is that the new show starting in what was previously Sherlock's slot, Apple Tree Yard, is a fake and that the 'secret fourth episode' of Sherlock will be aired in its place. A lot of people seem to believe this wholeheartedly, despite the fact that Apple Tree Yard is a real programme, with a real trailer, based on a real novel. How can people be so invested in an imaginary TV relationship that they surgically remove all logic from their brains?

Good work Sapphire. What you write about the women in Sherlock makes so much sense

I would agree with that too Sapphire. It was a lazy argument on my part and I wish I had the ability to think to your depths!

I stand corrected

But in all seriousness yes I take on board your points, though I'd look at some of them from a different angle - i.e. It was not that Irene "needed" Sherlock to save her, but more that she got under his skin so much that he couldn't help but seek her out again, making it HIS weakness, not hers.

And with Mrs Hudson I'd say maybe it was just character development - they could have easily left her as a 2 dimensional "land lady" character.

I agree that Moffat's explanation over Molly was flawed, even Louise Brealey said that she disagreed with his take on things. But as she said herself, in response to the Twitter criticism:

"Loving someone after years is not reductive, retrograde, antifeminist or weak. Fight the patriarchy, not me, and read some fucking Chekhov."

But ultimately, it's just a tv show. The two central characters are men and always will be, there's not much we can do about that!

Bravo Sapphire. A brilliant summary of Sherlock's women right there.

I found weak and meek Molly particularly jarring, because Louise Brealey is such a strong feminist voice IRL. But it's not her fault, obviously.

I thought it very symbolic that Eurus was finally discovered, in a nightie, half crazed, in a small attic room...Madwoman In The Attic, anyone?

Eurus as Mrs Rochester....

Obviously, in Jane Eyre it is implied that Mrs Rochester is 'mad' and must be locked away, because she is actually just highly sexed (gasp, horror). Volatile and passionate she is deemed crazed and dangerous - would a similarly lustful and volatile man be locked up? Doubt it...

But with Eurus, it's not lust which drives her mad - instead it is her staggeringly high intellect which drives her insane. Her poor little woman's head just can't deal with all these brilliant thoughts, and it collapses on it self. In contrast, Mycroft is also described as exceptionally intelligent, yet his male brain can cope and he ends up with a very prestigious government position.

Well said Sapphire

Well I've just watched half of it and gave up. Partly cos it sounds bloody horrible. So was eurus never in the secure unit if she's actually in an attic?

MaQ hello lovely.

I read The Wide Sargasso Sea after JE (which as a 10 yr old I found v odd)

Was wondering if I should watch the last bit of Sherlock after all but nothing I read convinces me.

Or it could be...you know, just a TV show.
It would be like me taking the show No offence (which I like very much) and calling it misandrist because the action focuses on four female leads and the men are sidelined, shot or one dimensional crims.
Given his wife and MIL are i/c of production and certainly Sue used to read all of his scripts for Coupling (3 strong funny sexually confident women, 3 weak hapless crap men whose sexism and insecurity were derided, they were the butt of most of the jokes ), I just don't think there is deliberate misogyny afoot...Greg Lestrade is as sidelined/underused as Molly if not more so.
The original canon only had one regularly occurring female character. The action is based on two men...if that is problematic, there's always Elementary.

The difference between this and No Offence, Holistic, is that our society is massively skewed towards privileging males. The very fact that No Offence is unusual in foregrounding women (and not particularly commenting on, or making plot issues out of, them being women) indicates that there is still a way to go.

I do look forward to the day when I can get angry about a show for its reductive and misandrist portrayal of men, and rant about how it perpetuates stereotypes and maintains the status quo at men's expense, because that will mean that the balance in gender portrayal has changed to such a degree that we have to call out sexism against men, just as we call out sexism against women now.

I haven't seen Coupling so can't comment on it, but I have thought since about Series 2 of Sherlock that Moffat's wife and MIL being on the team has meant that his most self-indulgent urges (not just the sexism but the wildly convoluted and smartarse plots and situations, the smug banter etc) have gone unconstrained. A more distanced senior production team might have been able/willing to rein him in a bit.

Greg Lestrade has never really been brought more to the fore than in Series 1, in contrast to Molly et al; yes, his character has a small role and doesn't develop, but in a sense that's better than the women's roles developing, considering the ways in which they've developed.

Yes, it is interesting to consider Elementary, and to ponder on why the writers/producers on that show came up with a female Watson when Moffat and Gatiss didn't. And of course there's still the question of will we ever see a female Holmes...?

I don't accept the argument that anything is 'just a TV show', any more than I accept the accusation often seen on MN that people are 'overthinking'. Everything is part of the culture and the conversation and can, or should, stand being talked about and thought about.

Cave, at most I'd say Sherlock was weak regarding Irene, yes, but equally she needed him to save her.

Mrs Hudson's character could have been developed in many ways; I maintain that it is interesting to consider why they decided out of all the options available to writers with fertile imaginations to develop her into someone who drives a fast car while on the phone and is into handcuffs.

Because it was unexpected. Element of surprise.
A middle aged bloke with a fast car/big car = mid life crisis/penis extension
Una Stubbs with a fast car = kick ass
In dramatic terms it's the idea of someone you thought you knew having an entirely different back story. She was, for better or worse, a maternal figure: I would be ecstatic if my Mum (same age) asked for new handcuffs for Xmas. Would think good on her. Would I expect a 79 year old to still be into cuffing a partner to the bed? Nope. But that's probably because I am knackered and jaded in my middle age.
It was joyous not piss-taking/making someone into a comic figure as far as I am concerned and her scenes were exhalted by many. I see that as liberating not ridiculing or stereotyping.
I do think joy gets sapped out of things when over analysed, yes. But obviously anything is worthy of debate. I could have the same debate about Dirk Gently (except I am absolutely of the opinion the women in that are kick ass). Would be bloody boring if we all saw the same/thought the same/wrote the same.

And now this woman has to go to work. Sayonara.

And of course there's still the question of will we ever see a female Holmes...?

Madame Vastra is meant to be a female Holmes. She, Jenny and Strax should have had a spin-off.

The Mrs Hudson stuff makes me a bit uncomfortable because it feels like the sanitized end result of a behind the scenes running joke. It reminds me of Martin Freeman saying "I've been flirting with Una Stubbs. Well it's actually sexual aggression, but I find the line between the two quite blurry." It looks like a group of men laughing at the daft old lady. She deserves more respect.

Holistic, I'm with Singing on the Mrs Hudson character. Laughing at her, not with her.

Wotcha Fids

How is the reading going???

MaQ Was in England at C'mas & in book shops, real ones with real books. Saw a terrific old film last weekend, black & white, set in the aftermath of the war & there was a Duke. Introduced as Duke of ... which I missed, thereafter referred to as "Your Grace" - Buckingham? Did think of you, "Who he then?"

Yes to Madame Vastra is meant to be a female Holmes. She, Jenny and Strax should have had a spin-off.

Sapphire asked "will we ever see a female Holmes", well there has already been one - I used to watch a TV series called The Adventures of Shirley Holmes starring Meredith Henderson, she is supposed to be the grand-neice of Sherlock and I thought she was up there with Jeremy Brett as one of the great portrayals of Holmes. You only have to watch the opening sequence to see her talent, she has this cool serious demeanour with a penetrating gaze like she can see straight to the heart of every puzzle. Did anyone else used to watch this series? It was an Anglo-Canadian production, I forget if it was on the BBC or ITV.