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.

Not really though

She is texting him all the time and he never replies
She has his name as the password to his phone

Sounds fairly standard girl besotted with unattainable bloke stuff to me

And as for sex - Despite his apparent lack of interest he has clocked her measurements for the safe (bleurgh)

Oh god the measurements. It was like something from 1966.

Possibly, and Sherlock is playing games by not responding, certainly, but it's also possible to read IA's texting and even the phone password as aspects of her own love for playing games, flirting, and teasing.

And as for her measurements, I think that has less to do with him 'checking her out' in any conventional way than with his above-average observational skills. In a previous episode he notes the exact amount of weight that Molly has put on, and it's been pretty firmly established that he's not sexually interested in Molly. I'd bet that he takes the physical measure of every individual in every room he enters, along with what they're wearing, mannerisms etc.

The fact is that the writers made this supposedly very intelligent woman use her body measurements as her safe password, because clearly that's all that matters to women - our bodies and whether they measure up for the men we advertise them too.

I've never watched it before but that episode was a pile of wrongness.

Also the writers used the body measurement thing because it titillated them and they wanted us to think about the size of her T&A (T&A = their attitude, not mine, that's what they reduced her to).

Yes, in the tv version (I haven't read the original story) IA is portrayed as a super-sexy woman who uses her sexiness to manipulate others. A misogynistic stereotype of a woman in other words. Where was the evidence of her towering intellect in the programme?

Fair point about the measurements, LadyClariceCannockMonty, I thought the same about that.

I realise that Endeavour contained comments like 'letting herself get pregnant' but those were of the age; the point is that even though the main leads of Endeavour and the unbent policeman were in a largely sexist time (1965), their characters held sympathy for the opposite sex and were not happy about them being used and abused.

With Sherlock-which is supposed to be set in enlightened times-it seems quite the reverse.
Why couldn't Irene Adler outwit him (this clearly happens in the story upon which the show was based)?

I consider myself a feminist, and intelligent, and I don't have any problem using body measurements as code. And unless you watched carefully and read backwards, or paused and replayed the bit where Sherlock enters the numbers into the safe, the episode didn't really dwell on what the numbers actually were.

The episode didn't need to dwell on what the numbers were, the woman was prancing around without any clothes on!

I really don't think that a woman as intelligent as this woman was supposed to be would use her own "vital statistics" (why are they vital BTW does anyone know) as a code. I just don't see it . Also don't see her using Sherlock's name for her phone.

I think she showed her intelligence by very nearly beating him. His name in the phone was extremely clever and almost outwitted him - he'd gone through every possible idea apart from his own name (which very conveniently ends in 'lock').

And I think the measurements was because she wanted him to work it out and made it nice and easy by not 'wearing' or indicating any other numbers in conversation. Also, she was toying with his intellect, having heard he was not very interested in women from Moriarty (who called him 'the virgin' to her).

Sure, the writers wanted to increase the titillation and ratings by us looking at her naked - I just think for once it didn't detract from the story and had some intelligence behind it.

There is just so much to complain about on British tv when it comes to a feminist perspective and so little intelligent programmes that I'm completely loathe to complain about it.

The reason the vital statistics were used was to again draw attention to the woman's body. As if anyone had missed giving it any thought before that point.

Someone linked to the mail on another thread about Sue Perkins and on the same page I read:

"Doing the Splits: Lara Pulver who has separated from husband Joshua Dallas
Sultry actress Lara Pulver shocked the nation when she stripped off, clutching only a dominatrix whip in suggestive scenes, in the latest Sherlock Holmes series, which was screened by the BBC well before the 9pm watershed on New Year?s Day.
But while ten million viewers studied her naked charms, one person unlikely to do so in the future is her handsome husband, Hollywood actor Joshua Dallas, 30, who played warrior Fandral in Kenneth Branagh?s blockbuster sci-fi movie, Thor."

Do people really imagine that the nudity of the actress and the use of "vital statistics" was really fundamental to the storyline? Or was it there to increase interest in the series by generating press response like the above?

x-posts

I think that people are going through some contortions to explain why the gratuitous nudity and her swooning after him despite being gay were absolutely fine and dandy.

Unfortunately I haven't read the original story but it sounds like they have realle messed about with the Irene Adler character.

I can't think of any other TV detective programme that has made one of the female leads sit naked with her male co-stars, or contained the utterly gross sexism of the idea of vital statistics either.

I'd have said this show was quite misogynistically unique in that respect.

I think he would have noticed her vital stats -as his character is supposed to be super observant- but it's the part about it being the safe code that irritates.

I personally can't judge someone's measurements by eye and think the point was to illustrate that Sherlock can. Much was made of her choosing to meet him in the buff, or what she called her battle dress, and I think it's true that nudity often unsettles the viewer of it and puts the nude person at an advantage. Certainly John, representing Everyman, had what I'd consider to be the typical response e.g. embarrassment and bumbling, while IA remained cool, calm and collected. Perhaps it was a little obvious for someone as cunning and clever as she is meant to be to use her vital statistics as a code, but I think that's a weakness in the writing rather than misogyny. And no, sorry, I don't know why they're called vital statistics either , but it smacks of a pre/non-feminist viewpoint from which they are the most important things to a woman. The episode explicitly didn't refer to them as vital statistics ? surely a point in its favour.

I think Moffat simply couldn't resist using the device of the phone reading 'I'm SHERLOCKED', and to be fair I don't think I could have resisted either if I were him; IMO it was a bit cheesy but quite sweet and funny. I think it also quite cleverly referrred to the fandom currently surrounding Benedict C, and more broadly to the phenomenon and iconography of fandom e.g. 'I Love Whoever/Whatever' T-shirts, mugs etc.

I feel as if I'm protesting too much in defending this episode. In truth I don't disagree with some of the points being made; I just feel that some of the criticisms are a little harsh and that adding a dissenting voice might be interesting.

I agree Sardine.

re Molly - I see her differently and don't have such an issue with her portrayal. Yes she is drippy but she is a pathologist and that takes some doing! I think it is helpful to show that not all successful women are hard nosed smart arses, which I think a lot of other series tend to do with "successful" women.

When Sherlock was making fun of her she stood up for herself. Maybe in a drippy way but at least she didn't run out crying!

I find her a believable character.

The dissenting voice is us.

Sexism on TV and defense of it is standard.

It could have been her height and weight or her foot size and hair length or anything.

That fact that the outdated concept of "vital statistics" is something that he specifically noticed in that way - rather than the more general statistics that he might notice of a child or a man - and the fact that they were used as the safe code - is just bleurgh.

But a naked woman in a room with fully clothed men is not at any sort of advantage. I commented on that upthread.

And I still can't think of any examples of IA's towering intellect in the tv adaptation - the focus was firmly on her sex, her body, her sexiness.

I found the whole IA thing supremely irritating but the way Molly is portrayed and treated by SH was the thing that annoyed me most of all. FFS the woman is a fucking DOCTOR so why portray her as a blithering idiot?

The Molly thing and the way he so comprehensively humiliated her was horrendous. Another wank fantasy from the writer though, obviously.

LadyClariceCannockMonty wrote - "nudity often unsettles the viewer of it and puts the nude person at an advantage."

Can you give some examples?

The male characters' contempt for women comes through very clearly. Now this might be faithful to the original characters and ACD's social and cultural context but this adaptation is set in the present day. Why bother to set it in the present day if you're not going to do interesting things with changed mores and attitudes?

I don't think Molly is a blithering idiot. I would say she is shy and her crush on Sherlock makes her blither a bit in front of him. I think that makes her more 'normal". She is always shown as likeable and very good at her job. Whenever she is talking about work she doesn't blither at all.

Do think Moffat thinks he is far cleverer than he is though! Ep 1 of Series 1 was a real let down (predictable from the start) and this Ep1 has been too. Hopefully Ep2 and 3 will be better again this time

I'm not defending sexism on tv

But at least Irene Adler used her body and her sex for her own ends and there was no 'happy hooker' storyline. At least they made her intelligent instead of just ridiculous like that awful Billy Piper prostitute programme. Her character was a lot more like Mata hari than anything else - she used other people's desire for sex against them to get what she wanted.

It's also interesting that they made her a dominatrix as that at least leaves the possibility open that she didn't have sex for money - if they'd made her a 'high class hooker' (how I loathe that term ) then it wouldnt.

Prolesworth - I agree re making him perhaps consider women equally rather than treat them the way he does. I think even Guy Ritchie has done better on this front!

However, he has walked himself into the Public School Boy trap. Mycroft is shown as your typical PSB and the stereotype is that they are all misogynistic so....

Lazy writing really