butterflykiki: (Sleeeeepyprincess)
[personal profile] butterflykiki

Mostly this is about "Scandal in Belgravia", because I was just complaining over on Havoc's journal the other day about the way Irene Adler got dismissed in the recent Sherlock movie series. I couldn't even care that they killed her off, because she was so... not-there. No offense to Rachel McAdams, who I usually like; they just didn't give her a lot to work with. Very pretty, but working for the bad guys, not really pushing any limits, not showing any particular genius of her own... Unless she hired the henchmen in the movie, she did nothing but show up, deliver a package, fail to die, then get killed. Not impressive.

The Irene Adler in "Scandal in Belgravia" is impressive. They've updated her from an 'adventuress', opera singer, and mistress to royalty, to a dominatrix (to royalty, to ministers of defense, to everyone she meets, really). My feelings on her see-sawed a great deal during the course of the episode; half the time I liked her. Half the time, she was hitting my embarrassment squick on behalf of other people, and thus making me want to slap her. She makes an excellent point about how women who 'misbehave' go looking for different kinds of protection; but then she turns that around, and does become the blackmailer she denied being in the beginning. The inequities of how a woman in her profession are treated or perceived aren't balanced out by the damage she did in setting free that information.

Should she have to be a heroine, though? In the original story, she wasn't so much the 'villain' as The Woman Who Beat Holmes and lived happily ever after with a completely different guy. That Holmes remembered her-- fondly might be too strong a word, but with admiration and respect. In Victorian times, her status as a fallen woman was easily established just by having been a Prince's mistress, taken photos he wanted back, and an actress. Sherlock BBC picked something with similar resonance for many people in the 21st Century -- being a dominatrix -- but then decided to make her pas de deux with Sherlock more overt, but still non-sexual.

Sort of. It's intellectual, but it's sexual; it's on an emotional games-playing board, not the simple get-the-MacGuffin of the first story. Moriarty's part in this gives it all a more sinister air. Sherlock holds his own by being amazingly perceptive on an intellectual and physical level, but he really didn't see some of those emotional punches coming. Thankfully, he still manages to figure out the puzzle even as she's using every wile in the book on him.

So why did she hit my embarrassment squick so hard, sometimes? It wasn't that she exposed herself, I think. I think it was that she was stripping other people bare without mercy, or warning. It's not something I deal well with myself, feeling my vulnerabilities are on display, or my insecurities are being mocked; Irene does it as a calculated ploy to get people to react the way she wants them to. And because yes, it's fun for her to be smarter, and in control (she's not in that profession by chance). She exposed her own liking for Sherlock in order to keep John off-balance, uncomfortable, embarrassed, after they'd had a conversation in which she claimed that John was in love with Sherlock (in spite of not being gay) and that she also was (in spite of being gay). And to keep Sherlock off-balance too. She was verbally cruel to Sherlock after exposing that she'd used his need to impress her to get him to break the codes, and yes, that was partly to keep him from figuring things out at the last second(which thankfully didn't work). But I think Sherlock's right, she just can't stop herself either. She has to show off.

I fear people like this, in real life. Because they hold up normal human feelings and reactions to scorn; they lie so easily in order to get things they could just ask for, then mock people for believing them; they don't admit they have weaknesses except as a way to manipulate other people.

So they've created a great character, but not someone I can admire, here. I can admire her brains, and her style. But she's just as emotionally messed up as Sherlock is, in some ways. I figured out within two seconds where that scene at Christmas was going, and had to mute it. I couldn't stand watching Sherlock strip Molly bare, either. Especially since he didn't realize he was doing it. Apparently he apologized, but I couldn't watch that part either. Irene kept doing the same thing to him, while she had a crush on him the whole time. Seriously, who does that? Blackmailing control freaks.

And yet, I don't *hate* her. Were we supposed to? Were we supposed to be siding with John in "who gets Sherlock"? Because I don't think it's that simple, jeez. They're best friends. Sherlock, by all reports here, has zero interest in sex at this time (and that was a squick too, how easily people mocked that). John has a strong interest in women, just happens to love his best friend more. Irene is a warped mirror of Sherlock, and he may sometimes be a narcissist but he's not *that* far gone.

Finally, Sherlock rescues her at the end. I don't know how I feel about that. I didn't want her to die, I'm glad she survived. And yet... Sherlock wins again. When in the original story, she won and beat him and didn't owe him anything, and was not a terrible person.

I have mixed feelings about this Irene. Still sorting through them.
Anonymous( )Anonymous This account has disabled anonymous posting.
OpenID( )OpenID You can comment on this post while signed in with an account from many other sites, once you have confirmed your email address. Sign in using OpenID.
Account name:
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.


Notice: This account is set to log the IP addresses of everyone who comments.
Links will be displayed as unclickable URLs to help prevent spam.


butterflykiki: (Default)

September 2017

345678 9

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 21st, 2017 04:56 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios