A Scandal in Belgravia (Sherlock BBC)

[keep_counting]

And that was... dissapointing


The episode went sort of like a curve for me: it started out REALLY great, then it got annoying, then I got bored, then a leeeetle bit of drama, then I was completely unempressed with the over-all plot, then Sherlock cracked the phone-code and I was all 'Wooohooo' and then that ending was about the lamest thing in ever.

Moffat, it's alright for characters to die and stay dead. It happens. Also, he can't write romance to save his life. I would say more about that, but just go read kilodalton's review of this. To quote on Moffat-romance: 'they're too rushed, too vapid, too based on sex as opposed to emotion, and fall flat.'

I got a kick out of Mrs. Hudson's scenes. Sherlock and John's relationship seems to have reverted to a former status however: oh, and the Molly scene was greatly executed as well. But overall? Not at all living up to the pure quality that was the first season. Instead of a plot-driven episode with amazing interaction, we have an episode that is mainly about a sexy-sexy lady (who is played beautifully by Laura Pulver I must admit) who double-hands Sherlock, and the secret, somewhat-eeeevil (only not really) government project. Oh, and Mycroft told Mrs. Hudson to shut up. Mycroft, that is so not on. You have been relocated on my favorites-list, and am now just above Anderson. Shame on you!!

In the canon story, Irene Adler is an opera-singer who, yes, cons people and yes, tricks and outsmarts Sherlock, but her story is a small one and in the end she runs away with this guy that she wants to marry - this guy who isn't Sherlock. At all. And this woman - written by a dude who lived in a society where women were not equal to men - managed to write her as strong and brilliant, without the bloody sex jokes.

Sorry, but its starting to become a pattern that a woman is strong if she's comfortable with being naked: she's strong if she's all about her sexuality. These don't have to be connected, at all.

Moriarty's ringtone almost saved this whole episode, though. That was so fucking amazing, I cried from laughter!!!

Comments

[keep-counting.livejournal.com]

Your icon did make me melt!

It was all rather vague, wasn't it? I read the link, and its an interesting view-point - I'm always in favour of seeing things from different sides, and I believe you can always intepret it differently than from what it might appear as, but the overtures that Moffat writes still makes me annoyed and left wanting. It was a very good read, but I don't agree with the fact that writing women as 'different' is a good thing, in the way that it's done here. For example the DW Christmas special, which I had a lot of problems with: I think it's an unlucky habit that people are given strengths only according to their gender, and not according to the person they are/will become. I also see many similarities between Irene and River from DW: especially in the way Moffat writes them with their 'partners', the Doctor and Sherlock: someone very sexual and sensual being put up against someone asexual and being described as their 'better'.

I do like Irene's storyline a lot better than River's though, even if I do think it would have had a bigger emotional impact if she had died in the end: it's getting a bit predictable, because Moffat never kills any important characters anymore - it kills the suspense just a bit! Plus, it would have been sort of cool if she had died, and Sherlock actually didn't know, because again, it would have been her fooling him and getting the upper hand :)

I think I might also be miffed, as I mentioned in my review, because ACD, a guy from the Victorian era, managed to write this incredibly strong, female character who didn't really seduce Sherlock at all, and was brilliant anyway. I just think it could be nice if there could be a female who could be strong and brilliant without it being about her gender (= being either a sexual being or a mother)

[thymelady.livejournal.com]

That sort of woman would be awesome and in her own right! It's sad that ACD could write that back then and we can't do it today. It's a disgrace.

The idea with the woman as the other could also refer to de Beauvoir's book and theory about The Second Sex, or at least I can't help getting that impression. Moffat's views on women are sadly lacking. All in all, it's a joy that this fact gets discussed to much.

And not being able to let people stay dead? That IS rubbish writing. In a way, Irene must be 'dead' now, given what happened.

Thinking of this, it annoys me that there was another clever woman who Sherlock sort of admired and who did what she wanted- and it had to include sex. The woman dressed in pink, in the beginning of A Study in Pink. We learn a lot about how intelligent this woman is, but she's not allowed to be alive and fully take an active part. Same goes for Irene Adler.

[keep-counting.livejournal.com]

Oh yes. I mean, I don't think they will bring her back even if she did survive: her story is 'over' so to speak, and if you're right about her being an emotional catalyst for Sherlock - which is quite brilliant - then there's no need for her to return, really. It just bugs me that he didn't make a proper, clean break instead.

I hadn't even thought of that woman! It's a bit of a shame, isn't it? I mean, the only really strong woman we've seen on the show is Mrs. Hudson: otherwise they've just been dead - Sally Donovan was downright nasty and spoke down to her superiors and the consultant they had, and even if we don't know her reasons, they were still out of line and Molly is pining and is sort of sad. Don't get me wrong, I love Molly and I thought she handled the situation very well: god knows I would have burst into tears if my crush had spoken to me like that, but I'm still waiting for her to just punch him and move on. It's just a bad pattern I think.