By Stephanie Cole
Sometimes when I’m watching a movie or television show or reading a book and I really dig the narrative, I come to a moment where I can suddenly, vividly picture the story going in a direction that would ruin the whole darn thing. As someone who tends to have feminism on the brain, this imagined turn for the worse usually involves doing something pointless and stereotypical with a previously well done female character.
Luckily, I rarely see my fear realized. Not because TV, movies and books aren’t often sexist, but because I’m pretty picky about what I view/read in the first place, and most well constructed narratives don’t suddenly spring sexism on you. So I found myself feeling particularly betrayed when a TV show that I trusted recently went all out ridiculously sexist on me, and that it dared to do so via an “adaptation” of one of my favorite proto-feminist narratives of all time.
The show in question is Sherlock, an adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories, re-set in 21st-century London. It’s a miracle that I was actually a loyal viewer of the show in the first place, because I am a huge fan of the original books, and I tend to be the pickiest of super fans. I have never liked an adaptation of the Sherlock Holmes stories, and that’s saying something, because they are the most frequently adapted stories in Western media.
I initially bristled at what seemed like a gimmicky re-boot, but when I actually watched the first season, I loved it. This was 90% due to the brilliant casting of Benedict Cumberbatch as the titular detective. He looked the proper age for the actually quite young detective, he had the height and the hair, and he played the role perfectly. The show also hit on the thematic/character arcs present in the books but lacking in most adaptations, and the mysteries seemed written by Doyle, with just the right balance of mood, action and intrigue. I was hooked, and when I heard that series creator Steven Moffat would be moving the show in a new direction in the second season, forgoing original mysteries for more direct, albeit expanded adaptations of actual Doyle mysteries, I was cautiously optimistic. Overall, I was looking forward to what they would do with the season two premiere, an adaptation of A Scandal in Bohemia, Doyle’s wonderfully feminist short story. After all, with the show’s solid record, I could trust them with the amazing Irene Adler, right?
Wrong. It seems that with “A Scandal in Belgravia,” Sherlock decided that it couldn’t continue that whole faithfulness and respect for the source material thing, because that would just be boring. After all, what does A Scandal in Bohemia have to offer but a brilliant, competent, and aloof heroine in Irene Adler? And we all know that women who are simply smart and powerful just don’t fit in on television. They need to be incredibly sexy too. Let’s make Irene Adler a dominatrix! What a great idea! This is of course, my imagined writing room dialogue as season two was being put together. I have a feeling it’s pretty accurate.
Okay, some background: 1891’s A Scandal in Bohemia had Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson trying to retrieve a photograph from a Miss Irene Adler. Adler, an American adventuress and acclaimed opera singer, is using the photo to blackmail the King of Bohemia, who is by all evidence a jerk, and probably deserves it. Holmes, prior to the story, harbored some pretty sexist ideas regarding the intelligence, or in his opinion, lack thereof, of women. He thinks the case is open and shut and comes up with a foolproof plan to get the photos back. Unfortunately for him, he doesn’t account for Miss Adler being brilliant; smarter than him, actually. With some clever gender bending undercover work, she beats Holmes at his own game and wins the day. Holmes is impressed, relinquishes himself of his sexist assumptions, and ends up as close to in love as his personality could ever allow. It’s pretty awesome.
Now, let’s examine the way Moffat & Co. have adapted the story. Ms. Adler is no longer American, which I’m okay with, but she has also gone from an adventuress and the toast of La Scala to a dominatrix. Now, before anyone jumps on me for being anti-sex/sex work, let me assure you that I have no problem with a real woman choosing to be a dominatrix or anything else for that matter. But this is a work of fiction. And the person or people who decided to make Irene Adler a dominatrix may hide behind the excuse that she is an “empowered woman using her sexuality to her own advantage,” but they honestly chose to do it because it means leather and lace and the chance to sexualize Irene. Also, the chance for her to introduce herself to Sherlock in the nude. That was a nice touch.
So, once the show takes Irene Adler and has her wear nothing or next to nothing and make awkward sex noises, how much worse could things get? Much worse. Irene seems smart, but it turns out she is mostly dependent on her employer, Moriaty, for her success. (What is with this trend, also seen in the recent Sherlock Holmes film, of making Miss Adler an agent of Moriaty? Why can’t she be an independent force?) Furthermore, Irene doesn’t in fact win in the end, because all her delicate lady emotions get in the way. She’s just too in love with Sherlock! There is also a very damsel in distress rescue at the very end that is just all around terrible. Let’s not forget that while she is flirtatious in the original story, Irene never falls for Holmes. She goes off to America and gets married, and the detective is the one with the swoony disposition and her portrait on his mantelpiece.
I understand that sexualized female characters on television are a dime a dozen, and for a viewer not familiar with the original source material, the amount of character assassination at work in A Scandal in Belgravia might just go over their heads. It’s a shame, because the fact that the series chose to take its first major departure from Doyle’s characters with Irene says a lot about what our current media expects of women. Yes, women can be powerful, but that power must be expressed in an inherently sexual way. Yes, women can be smart, but they are also more emotional than men and therefore not equally brilliant. And they usually need some rescuing. It’s pretty ironic that these antiquated messages are actually a revision of a text from the 19th century! I gather from his treatment of Irene Adler, as well as the many other smart, capable, and badass women who appear throughout the Holmes stories, that Doyle had progressive ideas regarding gender. What does it say about our current media, that our narratives are taking a step back?
If this is such a pervasive problem, why am I signaling out Sherlock? My being an SH fangirl is a contributing factor, but I find that this instance of sexualization is a particularly helpful example of where the problem lies. As an adaptation, one can compare both narratives side by side and see exactly what the writers thought needed to be changed about Irene. She had to be sexier, more emotional, and she had to lose. That’s our current culture’s expectations of women and girls in a nutshell.
Hi
‘Disappointed’ is spelt incorrectly in the title.
Thanks, Victoria!
How disappointing. I am also a fan of the series and had high hopes for a brainy, engaging second season. I’m pretty sure the plot you described matches up perfectly with an episode of Sonic the Hedgehog from the mid-90s. It’s that level of sophistication.
Great review. Strangely enough I recorded and then watched this episode last night. I haven’t watched any of the others, nor have I read any ACD, but my husband had been raving about the earlier episodes. Coming as a completely ‘cold’ viewer to the series, my reaction to it’s predictable and contrived formula for the lead female was exactly the same. While I could appreciate that it is wonderfully stylised, witty and so on, from the first introduction to Irene (sultry, in lingerie walking away from the camera) I was quietly rolling my eyes. By the scene where she greets SH naked I was bored and half watched the rest over the top of the laptop, having decided to browse the web for something more interesting to look at. At the end my husband even flatly summarised with a ‘hmm, it was better than that before, I promise!’.
So it’s not just ACD aficionados who were turned off by the cliched and sexist presentation of the female characters.
“I gather from his treatment of Irene Adler, as well as the many other smart, capable, and badass women who appear throughout the Holmes stories, that Doyle had progressive ideas regarding gender.”
Perhaps not. I just got into the series myself and I’m reading the original stories now. I was disappointed to learn that Doyle was an outspoken anti-Suffragist and thought the Suffragist’s methods were unfeminine. Watson also writes that Sherlock “disliked and distrusted the female sex” but “his was a chivalrous opposition.”
I’ve only read a few stories so far, and not the original A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA, so I judge whether the Sherlock stories, or Doyle, can be called feminist. My guess is his views towards women were complicated. What do you think?
Although I enjoyed your article very much, I cannot help but think you are fantasizing Irene Adler in the Canon slightly too much. She was kind of the woman who disguises as a man for pleasure and flirts with the King of Bohemia, ‘the jerk’ as you call him, probably by using her sexuality to some extent. She needed the King’s photo as her ‘protection’…protection from what? Obviously she had enemies. Was she fully independent? No, she gave up the photo because she married to another man to protect her. Moreover, she herself says there was someone who had warned her about Holmes. We are not sure who the person was, could be Moriarty or somebody else, but the point is, she wasn’t the independent force at all. She was definitely a super smart woman, but not innocent nor independent.
BBC’s Adler was more independent in my opinion. I didn’t get any impression that she was working FOR Moriarty. They were sort of collaborators I think, and Irene was mostly working alone. I did want to see her triumphant at the end, though. I agree with you on that one.
I’m a new fan of Sherlock Holmes, (exploring the books and the film and TV adaptations at the same time), and I’m afraid to say I found this page while searching out of curiosity to see just how misogynistic Conan Doyle really was. In fact I came to this opinion just after finishing the story “A Case of Identity”, just two stories after your dear “A Scandal in Bohemia.” The story finishes with this short paragraph:
“And Miss Sutherland?”
“If I tell her she will not believe me. You may remember the old Persian saying, ‘There is danger for him who taketh the tiger cub, and danger also for whoso snatches a delusion from a woman.’ There is as much sense in Hafiz as in Horace, and as much knowledge of the world.”
While this is as far in the SH cannon as I’ve gotten, it looks to me like Doyle wrote Irene Adler to be his and/Holmes’ fantasy of a woman very different from his opinions of what women truly were – simply inferior to men.
I have just fallen in love with Sherlock Holmes. I never paid much attention to the old movies that I watched as a child, but after watching the new BBC series Sherlock, I have taken an interest and am now watching the old Grenada series and reading about the Sherlock character.
One thing I notice is all the so called feminists hating the new series because of it’s depiction of the female characters or lack of them. However from what I garner from the older series females were not a part of Mr. Holmes life and when they were featured in the stories they were portrayed as most women of the day would have been perceived by gentlemen like Mr. Homles. Faithful wives, mothers, daughters, etc. The only woman in any of the stories who behaves more like a man than any other gets respect from Mr. Holmes as “The Woman”. Interesting.
Irene Adler is the type of woman I hate most yet the feminists love her, why? Because she ran away from Holmes rather than play his game of wit? Because she married somebody successful and lived happy ever after? In the end she did what any ordinary woman would do, relied on a husband for protection. If that is feminism than WTF?
There were so many better females in the stories, what’s so special about the one who was the “bad girl” And what does it say about all us woman who do not desire to “beat men at their own game” but who just want to walk beside them in unison?
i am not actually a beliver that irene adler is smarter than sherlock….. she didn’t beat sherlock …. she ran away from him instead of playing a proper game with him….. running away doesn’t actually declares you as a winner…..moriarity instead played the game head on…so on that aspect i dont think that adler’s character got tamed in any way.. instead i feel that her charecter is more independent in the bbc series than in the book.. in the book we hardly get to see adler… in the bbc series the entire episode is between sherlock and adler….. and ofcourse when you play a proper game with sherlock you bound to loose (unless you are moriarity).. nothing ironic here.