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.

There have been comments on other sites about the 'stereotypical Muslims' at the end, by which I think the commenters mean the stereotypical Middle Eastern executioners/terrorists. Unless they think Muslims and terrorists are actually always the same thing ...

I was fairly happy to accept the executioners as a bit of a throwback to how they probably would have been depicted back in Conan Doyle's day. But maybe that just means I'm a closet Islamophobe?

So the question is why did they change the character from an opera singer to someone working in the sex industry?

I really don't think the reason for the change was in order to make statements about patriarchy and power. I think it was so they could have a woman be all sexy and get her kit off onscreen.

And Irene wasn't that great was she.

She was found by holmes and he guessed the combination
She would have been caught by the americans if he wasn't there
At the end she has been caught and is about to be executed
She fell in love with him though she was gay
She texted him incessently even though he never replied
She used his name for her phone

None of this says "Holmes equal" to me.

She WAS great!

In the old days (she said vaguely) actresses and, presumably, other women who worked on the stage were viewed by a lot of people as either being prostitutes or being very similar to them, and often looked down on, morally speaking. Maybe in Conan Doyle's day women in these roles were sometimes still seen as a bit beyond the pale? If so then someone working in the sex industry seems like a modern continuation or variant on this, rather than a drastic change.

I guess it seemed more likely to the writers that these days powerful, wealthy people would pay for 'personal services' than simply have lovers. It also seemed crucial to the drama/plot that she have more than one 'lover' (client); she had to know about a lot of different dodgy, high-up secrets. Again, it's probably more plausible for her to be a professional with many clients than to just have a whole stable of lovers. And of course it adds drama and, yes, a bit of titillation.

I think that's a bit of a stretch ladyclarice!

From opera singer with a lover
To S&M worker with a load of clients

People do still have affairs with people they shouldn't - I would have thought a member of the royal family having an affair would still be a huge story.

I just think the change was unnecessary and done simply to get a naked body on the screen and give viewers who like a naked women with a whip a bit of a frisson. Rather than any higher / purer / historical reason.

Possibly the bit with holmes and the sheet was an attempt to deflect any accusations of sexism - but look! He was naked too!

She was found by holmes and he guessed the combination - she knew he would find her and she knew it was him outside while he was still pretending to be a vicar

She would have been caught by the americans if he wasn't there - as was he

At the end she has been caught and is about to be executed - he has been equally facing down a gun and just been 'saved' by someone else - watson for exampl

She fell in love with him though she was gay - it didn't appear to be sexual love but intellectual attraction to me

She texted him incessently even though he never replied - as part of the game, and because she was attracted to his intellect. He responded in his own way - by tracking her down and it's inferred going to great lengths to track her and rescue her from beheading. He didn't need to text her back - he needed her to keep texting him so he had her location.

She used his name for her phone - and then gave it to him as part of the game knowing it would be almost impossible to crack

But I still think she wasn't a great role model, just interesting enough compared to the crappy female characters we get in prime time.

Well, you can call it a 'stretch' or you can call it an extrapolation for modern times and where the writer wanted to keep some sort of link (however faint) with the original but also put their own spin on it. I wasn't trying to argue that they were trying to faithfully update the original ? they've said before that they take the source material as inspiration but like to go off in other directions with their own ideas. They are writing original drama, after all, not straight adaptations.

Sardine, only just seen your post starting 'And Irene wasn't that great was she.'

Was going to reply but, again, Laurie seems to have made all the points I would, only much more articulately and concisely!

You can interpret it whichever way you like, obviously people will view things and come to different conclusions.

Fact is they still managed to shoe-horn a naked women in, who predictably fell for "our hero", and the writer has said it was done to put paid to speculation about homosexuality with holmes and watson.

I'm been searching online for the writer saying that

can't find it....can anyone enlighten me?

I saw it upthread I don't know where it came from unfortunately

I wouldn't say she was 'shoehorned' in, reason being that it all made perfect sense within the context of the episode. And I remain sure that she 'fell for' Sherlock (and he for her), in a much more nuanced and unusual way than could have been the case. I don't disagree though that it's a bit of a pity if it's true what Moffat said about it putting paid to speculation about Sherlock and John being gay ? apart from the faint whiff of homophobia that implies, the occasional references/jokes about their possible relationship were a nice feature of the first series.

Having said that, I don't think this episode necessarily quashes all speculation ? I maintain that Sherlock and Irene A were attracted to one another in ways not necessarily excluding a straightforward sexual one, but most definitely not limited to that. I'd say the main impression I came out with was that Sherlock's, Irene's, John's and, by extension, human sexuality is very plastic, unpredictable, and hard to label.

The only reference I can find to Stephen Moffat saying anything about Sherlock being gay is in todays Telegraph:

"In a convincing article on Holmes last Christmas ? when Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock, a more traditional, less witty, Victorian version, came to the cinema ? A N Wilson argued that Holmes was such a unique creation that he grew beyond Conan Doyle's control; that he developed characteristics beyond those planned by his creator. Wilson was ? like Steven Moffat ? convinced that Holmes is gay, even if Conan Doyle didn't intend it that way"

So if Moffat thinks Holmes is gay why would he say they threw adler in to put paid to that - it makes no sense

Stephen Moffat also said the following quotes in digital spy - no homophobia there, just the opposite in fact.

"It is of course the 21st century. Two men looking for a flatshare is going to raise questions - or in this case have them answered by other people making suppositions.

"The ambiguity is fine. It's probably the first ever bromance. It's a very mature relationship by the end of the story. It's a beautiful thing."

The writer of the series, Doctor Who scribe Stephen Moffat, agreed that he always wanted to play on the confusion of Holmes and Watson's relationship and never intended to confirm either character's sexuality.

"I don't think there is anything that suggests Sherlock is gay but if he was he wouldn't fancy John [Watson].

"It's just that thing of two blokes hanging around together living together - in this nice modern world it leads to people saying, 'Oh, are they a couple?' And that's nice. I thought how the world has changed, there is no disapproval. How much more civilised the world has become."

I'm really not sure why people are trying to convince feminists or themselves that the Sherlock episode wasn't sexist and misogynistic.

I mean using a woman's vital statistics to show that Sherlock was "observant". WTF, could they really not use anything else to demonstrate that capability? Completely changing IA's character/role to defer to Sherlock. In fact changing her sexual preferences to stroke Sherlock's ego. Does Sherlock have actually have to say "I am a sexist pig" to convince you?

Indeed Handdived.

As for whether or not Moffat included IA to counter homosexuality speculation, it depends if you believe the Daily Mail:

www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2081486/Lara-Pulver-naked-Sherlock-Holmes-BBC-raunchy-pre-watershed-scenes.html

Given that homophobia is misogyny's little brother, I tend to think they're accurate.

I didn't say the Irene character was shoehorned in, but that her nudity was.

They changed her occupation from singer to dominatrix to enable them to do that. ie shoe-horned

Handdived; AND racist!

HandDived, the vital-statistics thing; well yes, they could have used something else but they chose to use that. It makes sense in the context of the drama in that yes, she is a sex worker, so why shouldn't she use sexualised things? IMO it's also part of her playing with Sherlock and him playing back ? she wanted to see if he would 'get' the code and is impressed (she says 'flattered' too) when he does; he retorts that she shouldn't be. Not misogynistic dialogue IMO as much as snappy and a little bit flirtatious, and ambiguous; it leaves open the possibility that he DID notice her measurements in a sexual way. Changing her character/role; the Conan Doyle story she appears in is very brief and contains much less plot than the episode and so, if anything, they've just expanded on her character and role rather than changing them. And, as I said earlier, the writers are actually at liberty to make changes; they never set out to faithfully adapt the Conan Doyle stories but rather use them as a springboard.

IMO her sexual preferences don't change as such; it's not that simple ? they are challenged. As are Sherlock's preferences and/or feelings, I think, inasmuch as he is suddenly up against someone playing a kind of game that he is not used to that stirs up unaccustomed feelings in him. And as are John's feelings and his ideas of how to label them, because he is demonstrably straight and yet in agreement with Irene that they feel something for Sherlock they're not used to feeling for anyone.

Laurie, that's interesting about Steven Moffat. I see that in the Digital Spy interview he doesn't even say 'Sherlock's not gay' as the headline has it; he says 'I don't there's anything to suggest that Sherlock's gay'. A good example of how casually things can be used out of context in the media.

Of course she is flattered when Sherlock gets the code.It's saying that she hasn't 'let herself go' like so many modern girls.

LCCM, this part of your post:

'I don't disagree though that it's a bit of a pity if it's true what Moffat said about it putting paid to speculation about Sherlock and John being gay ? apart from the faint whiff of homophobia that implies, the occasional references/jokes about their possible relationship were a nice feature of the first series.

Having said that, I don't think this episode necessarily quashes all speculation ? I maintain that Sherlock and Irene A were attracted to one another in ways not necessarily excluding a straightforward sexual one, but most definitely not limited to that. I'd say the main impression I came out with was that Sherlock's, Irene's, John's and, by extension, human sexuality is very plastic, unpredictable, and hard to label.'

I would like to hope that is how the rest of the series is going to go, and that they don't fall into repeating some of the stereotyped elements that were in this episode, because I do think they have created some interesting characters and the ambiguity and complexity of the characters in general was a nice feature of the first series.

Moffat responds to the Guardian article.

And Lara Pulver comments on her perception of her role - thought I might link to this since she is the one who actually gets naked!