Sherlock and Endeavour.

[Wamster]

I watched both of these shows and although obviously just TV, I was struck how one of them was really sexist and the other one sympathetic to women.
Ironically, it was the modern-day Sherlock that fell short and not Endeavour, it irritated that the character of Irene Adler -who outwits Sherlock in the Conan Doyle books- is shown here as being simpering and, although clever and resourceful, turns into jelly because of Sherlock's charms.
Also, why couldn't she just outwit him?! He beats her intellectually and saves her life at the end.
By contrast, Endeavour showed the (sad) reality of how women are used and abused by men (the young girls used at orgies; the young girl used as a toy between the two Oxford academics; the betrayed wife) but presented a more sympathetic view of women on the whole.
Women presented as being rounded characters with feelings and emotions.
It is strange of how a character such as Sherlock (as portrayed here by Benedict Cumberbatch) is shown to be pretty vile to women -yet is fancied by a lot of women so it seems-and it is somehow OK when set in the modern day with modern day audiences.

OK, it is just TV, I know but just an observation.

"The writer said he introduced a woman as sex interest because he couldn't think of another good reason for introducing one" (perhaps?)

I entirely agree that they could do so much more with Molly (who is a pathologist, FFS, you have to be pretty bright and tough to get into that position -- as written she's a bit dim and a bit of a drip).

I thought the point of Watson getting his girlfriends muddled up was that he was starting to be too heavily influenced by Sherlock, who does that, and hence was not being shown as a good thing. I do think it missed the presence of the Girlfriend Who Was Also His Boss from the first series, though -- she was an interesting character until she got reduced to Damsel In Peril in the circus episode.

Mark Gatiss? I liked league of gentlemen... but that's all I know about him.

Reason number 74 why I'm glad I don't have a tv.

I loathed Sherlock (the last 10 mins anyway) How could they miss the point of "A Scandal...' so totally???

Mark Gatiss if you are reading this, IA is as clever as Holmes. That is why he is obsessed by her, not cos she looks nice without her clothes on. women can be clever y'know, just like actually it would be completely fine for Holmes/ Watson to be gay. Or do you just have one eye on the international sales? FFS.

I loved the first series and was sooooo looking forward to this new one, wish I'd watched Endeavour now [Cross]

Maybe I won't go back and watch the recording of the last 15 minutes, then.

i thought the show was excellent.Strong male leads and beautiful women artfully presented.The BBC have a winner.

Erm, lollygag are you lost? or just a bit thick?

Sorry I misunderstood the meaning of the thread.

I thought Sherlock was TERRIBLE. Why can't they have some fat ugly women on TV for a change?

You're not the only one who thought this, OP, see www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/03/sherlock-sexist-steven-moffat. Does sound a travesty of the original (have read the original story but didn't see the programme).

Haven't seen either of them but have read a (feminist!) review of Sherlock in the Guardian.

I haven't read the original but agree about the way she was portrayed

"I'm such a liberated woman that I use my body as a weapon and whip people to get what I want". Thought that was lame really.

And then the "Oh I'm a lesbian (because I am a liberated woman) but I can't possibly avoid my simple biology that means I will become a blithering idiot when it comes to The Man and use the most god awful pun to lock my crucial phone"

And him rescuing her at the end - I'm willing to suspend my belief when watching TV but this was too far!

MRS HUDSON !!!!!!!

ahem, just had to shout that, couldn't help myself :)

Jeremy Brett as Sherlock is my secret non feminist weakness. The character is mysoginistic in large parts, self obsessed, condescending but brilliant with wonderful mannerisms and imbued with a complete sense of 'don't give a crap what anyone else thinks'

And I always end up pondering the issue as to whether I could ever be so ruthlessly singleminded about my goals/interests/passions.

Somehow you very rarely see a female character anywhere portrayed like that would ever be remotely acceptable.

it was so dire, particularly when compared to to the first series.

It was the whole "being a stripper is empowering" and "women are always victims who need to be rescued". BORING

The writing was shit. the whole password thing was a groaner. geddit, geddit?!

FFS

Oh yes I found that confusing. She said she was gay. Which added an extra dimension - holmes has a thing for her but can't have her, watson is jealous of how holmes is with her but can't really express it etc etc

So if she was gay WTF was she doing "falling for " (FGS) Holmes?

I think entirely differently about Sherlock. I'm not comparing it to the original books or past series with different actors - only as a stand alone piece.

I think they have very cleverly made Sherlock ambiguous sexually, when he has 'relationships' he has it with the whole person and not the sex. Irene Adler and him could appreciate each others intellect which turns them on without it being about sex of itself. They admire/respect/appreciate each others intellect, way of looking at the world, the way that neither are seduced by sex. Irene Adler was a lesbian in that episode - another thing that points to it being about intellect and admiration rather than about actual sexual attraction on its own.

When he 'saves' her at the end it's because he wants her to be out in the world rather than dead as there are few people of that intellect or that challenge to him.

The nudity I think was clever too, just a device so she couldn't be 'read' by him - she uses whatever is at her disposal to survive and thrive. However, she is also a pawn in modern day society - and a danger because of her ability to use sex to get information as lesser mortals are seduced by sex and flattery.

I don't deny that the nudity and the attraction between them is there to spice it up and get ratings (cynical about that obviously) but I do think it can be appreciated in a different way too.

The bit I don't understand is if she's supposed to be as clever as Holmes how come she hasn't got her OWN tv series?

And I agree Mrs Hudson has ovaries of steel, she deliberately faked the terrified woman to the attackers to hide the phone and that's why she was laughing a few minutes later.

I guess because she isn't the detective and only appears in 3 stories, and that when it was written it was more usual to use a male detective (before Marple)

More like overt sexism at the BBC.Plus if Marple is supposed to be a woman why do the BBC let that little old man play the part?

I've just read The Guardian article and totally agree with the part that a story written over a hundred years ago manages to be more feminist than the Sherlock of today!

Oh, yes, remember that lesbians can have their head turned by a man. Er, no. They wouldn't be lesbians if that were the case. . FFS!
Schoolboy male fantasy all the way.

I gree with Wamster - we should boycott the Guardian!

This thread has really become about Sherlock, but with regards to Endeavour - was it really any better? Women as hapless victims or manipulators - and it used the phrase that really riles me when the older detective talked about the girl "getting herself" pregnant. Does no-one have even a minimal grasp of biology??

The writers have repeatedly said that this episode was not about anything as simple as Sherlock in love but about Sherlock and love, which is more complicated. It's not true to say that IA was there as anything as straightforward as a 'love interest'; I agree with Laurie about Sherlock and IA ? who are both owners of singular and towering minds ? being 'turned on' by everything about each other but particularly their intellects and the satisfaction they both get from exercising them and playing clever games. Sherlock and IA experience 'love' for each other in a way that goes beyond the labels of sexual orientation and the fairly narrow ways (e.g. sex) in which most of us tend to express love, as do Sherlock and John. Love is almost infinitely plastic in its appearances and effects, and the brief but IMO skilfully written and performed exchange in which John says he isn't gay and IA says that she is, and yet there they both are, devoted to Sherlock, sums this up beautifully. It's not about a lesbian 'turning' for a straight man. It's not as simple as that.

I also agree that Sherlock rescues IA at the end because she is rare and he wants her out in the world. Plus, although he 'saves' her in this immediate and narrow context, she still comes out of the story as his equal; it proves that he is in thrall to her enough to have contrived this dangerous and difficult mission to save her life.