Category: Uncategorized

I think that one different and interesting revision of Conan Doyle’s story is the one scene in which Irene Adler appears to Sherlock naked. In the original this does not happen, but in the BBC modernized version she first meets with Sherlock not wearing a single article of clothing except heels.  Irene’s appearance shocks Sherlock so much that he is thrown off his normal mental balance and cannot get a read on her, much unlike his experiences with mostly everyone else. Her nude appearance to Sherlock is her one “ace in the hole” that she has over him and essentially any other man. Irene bests Sherlock’s genius without some elaborate plan, but by simply exposing herself, naked of any intricate maneuvers, only showing herself. She firmly knows that as an attractive woman she can out do any of his best laid plans simply by playing into his natural and primal desires that all men share. This is what leads me to my claim, Conan Doyle’s original story was about how a woman is Sherlock’s equal, the TV adaptation is a story of how a woman is in control of a man. Just like at the end of “The Rear Window”, Grace Kelly’s character puts down the book that Jame’s Stewart’s character thinks she’s reading, and substitutes it for the one that she actually wants. In general women tend to take the less aggressive approach towards situations and confide in their generally more passive place in relationships; the misunderstood role of women’s gender. This however does not mean that they are less in charge, in fact it means quite the opposite. By sitting back and allowing the more aggressive and more outward going men to run about solving things (Sherlock), women are able to approach with a more laissez-faire angle and view the situations until they can draw rational conclusions about accomplishing their goals. In the case of the “Sherlock” episode, Irene uses her sexuality to shock  Sherlock on his heels, play into his less intellectual side and more into his primal one, causing the disruption of his thinking process. Irene accepts her “gender-role” and uses objectification of herself as a distraction for Sherlock, and it works. The BBC version of Sherlock Holmes displays in this episode that women will always be able to manipulate men due to their more passive and thought-before-action approach, and in this case, with their sexual appeal.

In Steven Moffat’s revision of Conan Doyle’s original Sherlock Holmes series, Moffat brings Holmes and company into the modern era. This modern view allows us to view Holmes through a different lens, in this case seeing the issues that Doyle discusses in his series through a modern lens. Juxtaposing the original story with the revisions that Moffat has made can show us how our set of societal norms has changed since Doyle’s 19th century detective was first conceived.

Sherlock Series 2 – A Scandal in Belgravia Trailer

A Scandal in Belgravia parallels Doyle’s novel in a number of ways. Watson blogs rather than narrates. In fact, his blog takes the place of Doyle’s novel in a number of ways, even sharing the same titles as Doyle’s original stories. The blog idea is also shown with typography, showing Sherlock’s deductions as he’s thinking about possibilities, differentiating from Guy Richie’s films where Sherlock verbalizes his deductions and courses of action. The audience is also still placed in a passive state in Moffat’s films, the same as in Doyle’s stories. In Doyle’s stories, we’re reading Watson’s account of his and Sherlock’s adventures, in Moffat’s films we are often placed behind windows, looking through mirrors. It detaches us from the action, forcing us to realize that we have absolutely no participation in what is going on*. We are helpless and reliant on Holmes to solve the case.

In the case of A Scandal in Belgravia, Sherlock must solve Irene Adler, the same woman from A Scandal in Bohemia, with a modern twist. Adler is more fully developed in Moffat’s film, the subtlety traded for the detail needed for a film medium. From the 19th century story to the 21st century film, she transforms from a simple actress into a dominatrix. Despite the shock value, this isn’t much of a stretch for Doyle’s novel and in fact is a fairly good modern translation of occupation. Much as C.S. Lewis vaguely describes many of his characters, leaving much up to the reader’s imagination, Conan Doyle leaves much up to translation about Adler. It is our romanticized view of the past that causes us to believe that Irene Adler was of the same occupation that our culture is currently obsessed with. We now elevate actors and actresses to celebrity status, following them in tabloids and entertainment shows. However, in the 19th century, the job of an actress was not considered appropriate for a woman, much as our heteronormative society would consider the job of a dominatrix to be an inappropriate occupation for an intelligent, sophisticated woman, something Adler proves herself to be numerous times.

This is a theme that both the original text and Moffat’s revision do an excellent job of capturing. Doyle very specifically describes Adler as having the, “mind of a man”. In the original story, the simple idea that a woman could be on the same level as a man was shock value enough, not to mention that this woman was an actress. Moffat is able to capture that same feeling, but with the subtle change that we are now shocked that someone is on the same level as Holmes, that she can intrigue even the great Sherlock Holmes to the point of emotion. We are shocked by her occupation, the modern equivalent of a 19th century actress (in fact, Mycroft refers to her as an actress of sorts in the film). We are essentially shocked by the same things that Doyle proposed in his novel.

Sherlock meets the naked Irene Adler – Sherlock Series 2 – BBC

Adler’s occupation fits her characterization though. She is presented as having “the mind of a man” and so her role as a dominatrix, reinforces the idea that she is given dominance over others (in the novel, Sherlock is said to have considered her to be above all other women). It isn’t much of a stretch to consider that Irene Adler might identify as a man, despite biologically being female. This idea isn’t even specific to Moffat’s version, it can be inferred from the very description of her. As every other element of Doyle’s story creates a shock of sorts, the idea that Adler could be a transgender, genius with a socially inappropriate occupation and who can defeat Sherlock Holmes is rather fitting with the rest of the novel.

*Note: As an interesting note, Moffat has also included active audience participation in his television episodes before. In his episode of Doctor Who, Blink, the villains can be turned to stone when they are being observed. During the episode, there are numerous times when the characters are not looking at the villains, but the audience is, thus they remain stone.

In this show, what interests me most is the scene when Sherlock Holmes decoded Irene Adler’s camera phone. I think this is the climax of the whole episode because Sherlock successfully made a twist when Irene was so close to make Mycroft fulfill her requirement. Also, it indicates that Sherlock can truly set aside his personal feelings while Irene lost the game exactly for failure to do so.

 

When Irene bragged about using Sherlock to compile the e-mail from terrorist, Sherlock stayed muted all the time. But when Irene continued to mock “Holmes boys”, Sherlock stepped ahead and pointed out that he knew what the password is. Despite Irene’s shock, Sherlock began to analyze her motive. It is Irene’s sentiment that exposes herself. Although she tried to deny her feelings, Sherlock did not let her justify herself by telling her he had taken her pulse. For Irene Adler, her biggest security loophole is Sherlock Holmes because “love is a dangerous advantage”, said by Sherlock. He knew this theory well so he pulled himself back before the situation went uncontrollable – yes apparently he has some feelings to Irene too. For both of them, they cannot help being led by the sentiment yet Sherlock is far more rational. Even though Irene shed tears and begged him to help her after Sherlock successfully decoded her phone, he just turned around and left, acting nonchalant.

I think here we can draw a parallel to the ending of Maltese Falcon, where Spade also turned Brigid in without showing any mercy. Just like Spade, Sherlock also made the right choice at the key point – to punish the criminal.

 

On the other hand, Irene and Brigid also have something in common. They both use their feminine advantage to get what they want. In Irene’s case, she first showed up naked just to shock Sherlock and obviously she did it.

What’s more important, they both fell in love with their antagonists. To be more specific, even Irene Adler, a dominating lesbian, also has strong attachment to Sherlock because she is willing to make him an exception. It is the very attachment that makes her lose the whole game.

One prominent feature of  “A Scandal in Belgravia” is the use of profile shots—one-sided views of characters. The use of these camera angles is particularly striking in two particular scenes: when John finds Sherlock sitting in Buckingham Palace, and when Sherlock sits alone in Irene Adler’s sitting room. With the way the scenes are set up, the viewer can almost imagine a mirror placed in between the two photos, with Sherlock reflected in each of them. He even appears to be staring at himself across the different shots.

In both the Buckingham Palace scene and the sitting room scene, Sherlock sits slightly off to the side and is distanced from the camera.Everything in both scenes is entirely focused, so that it looks like a painting or a photograph. The stillness of each scene also helps to convey the impression of a photo. Both rooms feature a background that fades symmetrically into the distance, drawing the viewer’s eye at first to the center of the shot rather than to Sherlock, the main character. Both rooms appear to be filled with light and light colors, except for a few jarringly dark anomalies. In Buckingham Palace, Sherlock’sdark suit sits on the table; in the sitting room, Sherlock is dressed in black.

In a strange way, the shots are as opposite as they are alike. In the Buckingham Palace scene, Sherlock sits on the left side of the shot, facing right, and wears a white sheet. In contrast, in the sitting room scene, Sherlock sits on the right side of the shot, facing left, and wears a black suit. His body language is also opposite: in Buckingham Palace, Sherlock maintains a very tense and protective posture, while in Irene Adler’s sitting room, he is clearly very relaxed and holds his hands and arms loosely. This body language is slightly counterintuitive, considering the fact that in Buckingham Palace, Sherlock is supposed to be among friends, while Irene Adler is a known enemy.

The two mirrored scenes emphasize the differences between Sherlock and the rest of the world. In Buckingham Palace, Sherlock Holmes is out of place and uncomfortable. This is shown by everything from the tight posture that he maintains throughout the scene to the fact that he is wearing white while everyone else is wearing black (the fact that he resisted changing into a black suit to match everyone else is significant as well). In Adler’s sitting room, Sherlock is much more in his element. His ease with his surroundings is reflected in the fact that, once Adler puts on his coat, she becomes almost a mirror image of him, highlighting an equality and kinship between the two characters that Sherlock clearly cannot experience anywhere else.

“How does he do it?”, a phrase often uttered by Sherlock’s audience both on and off the screen whenever he reaches a conclusion from the simplest bit of evidence.

So how does he do it? Holmes observes the small things. He begins with the minute details, then the bigger picture, not the other way around, (much like how we were instructed to write this piece).

Holmes always preaches about observing rather than looking. In the BBC rendition of Sherlock Holmes, the white phrases in tiny font show the viewer what he is looking at and why it’s significant. However, I think the Periodic Table of the Elements hanging on Holmes’ bedroom wall is the most concrete piece of evidence that observing the small elements of a problem is how “he does it.”

The individual elements make up everything on the face of the Earth and out into space. So to understand any of those large things such as a blade of grass, you must look back to it’s smallest components – the carbon atoms it’s made from.

 

            “A Scandal in Belgravia,” which is the first episode of the second season of the BBC series, Sherlock, is a modern version of the Arthur Conan Doyle’s A Scandal in Bohemia. In this version, which is in many ways different from the original story, Irene Adler, also known as “The Woman,” is portrayed as the female equivalent of Sherlock Holmes in every way possible. This is first noticed in the scene in which the two are introduced to one another via photographs. In this scene the shot cuts between Sherlock looking at pictures of Irene, and Irene examining pictures of Sherlock. It is important to note that both are looking down at the pictures of the other which implies that Sherlock believes that Irene is his inferior, while Irene does the same indicating that she believes herself able to best Sherlock Holmes. This scene puts the two on the same level in the audience’s mind, and comments that they are very similar in their arrogance.

It is also important to note the way in which both characters are written. Both Sherlock and Irene are dark haired with piercing eyes, sharp cheek bones, and pale skin (as seen in the picture below.) They are both seen essentially naked at some point throughout the show, and most importantly they are both cold and unemotional people. It is clear over the course of the series that Sherlock is a heartless shell of a man who does not care for the feelings of others, and interestingly Irene is scripted as a dominatrix in this version. In order to perform this job one cannot show emotion or care for the feelings of others; emotional connections simply get in the way. Based on the unnaturally similar ways in which Sherlock and Irene think, act, and even look, it is clear that in this remake of Doyle’s A Scandal in Bohemia Irene Adler is meant to be in every possible way a female version of Sherlock Holmes.

In Sir Conan Doyle’s story “A Scandal in Bohemia,” he presents Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler as equals. In the BBC Sherlock adaptation “A Scandal in Belgravia,” this information is portrayed well, especially through the segment leading up to the two interacting for the first time.

In this segment, Sherlock comments about how he needs to dress for battle while agonizing over what to wear to visit Adler. The camera then cuts to Adler, who is also finding difficulty in selecting what to wear. Finally, she decides on her “battle dress.” Both characters invest a good amount of time and thought into their choice of clothing (or in Adler’s case, nudity) and both use the word “battle” to describe the interaction they know will soon be occurring.

When Sherlock and Watson are in the street near Irene Adler’s house, Sherlock tells Holmes to punch him in the face. Finally, Holmes does as he’s told, and it causes Sherlock’s cheek to bleed, creating a red streak. The camera cuts to Adler, inside the house, applying bright red lipstick. Again, this is a blatantly obvious parallel between the two characters. By cutting and editing the scenes in this manner, the audience has no choice but to recognize the similarities between the two.

Furthermore, in terms of wit and intelligence, the BBC version shows Adler looking at pictures of Holmes on her phone as Holmes is holding and viewing photos of Adler. The audience, or reader, in the case of the story itself, is led to believe that Sherlock cannot be outwitted, especially not by an unsuspecting woman. This segment proves that someone does exist who can challenge Holmes at his own game. Both believe they are being inconspicuous, but they both end up with photos of each other. This is especially significant in the case of equality because Adler’s photos are on the internet for all to view, making it simple for Sherlock to ascertain them, but Sherlock did not realize the photos were taken, displayed by his outfit of sheets and unexacting facial expressions in the pictures.

The one part of the story that appeared misrepresented was Adler’s title of “the woman.” In the Sir Conan Doyle story, the nickname was given by Sherlock out of respect and admiration because she was able to challenge and outsmart him. The show presents it as a nickname given to her in the “professional” world, which diminishes its significance entirely. The name was Sherlock’s acknowledgment of their equality and the BBC adaptation did not accurately depict its importance.

Sherlock Holmes has always been a great mastermind in literature. He is smart, cunning, and sly and always one step ahead of his suspects. In the Sherlock Holmes stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Holmes uses the technology of a well-crafted magnifying glass to assist with his deductions; it was the technology of choice for a first-rate detective in his era. In BBC’s hit television show Sherlock, technology plays an even greater role. It assists Sherlock in his endeavors and it is also used in editing the show to give the viewers an even greater perspective into the classic detective’s mind.

In the episode A Scandal in Belgravia, the first thing that a viewer sees is a cell phone. Obviously when Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the original stories from which the show is adapted, cell phones was just a figment of the imagination. However, the use of modern technology is continually present in BBC’s modern adaption. During A Scandal in Belgravia, Irene Adler does most of her major communication with Sherlock via text. Meanwhile, Sherlock is trying to hack into a cell phone for digitally stored, password protected pictures. Watson also uses modern technology in this version: all of his journaling is done on a blog and he is constantly checking his follower count to see how many Internet followers he has! The visual and audio representation of the cell phone and modern technology in this episode particularly keeps the viewers interest and provides additional background information without using dialogue or a voice-over.

That being said, the technology used to edit the Sherlock series also greatly enhances the viewers’ experiences. One of the most prominent features, particularly during scenes with cell phone use and blog writing, is that the text appears for viewers to read on screen. This text allows the viewer to feel personally involved in the plot and almost take on the character of Sherlock or Irene Adler in that instance. Text also appears on the screen for each analysis Sherlock does towards different object or people. It allows the viewer to see the small details that Sherlock comprehends and observe rather than just see. This text has an incredibly important purpose because it explicitly provides information that the viewer may not receive or understand otherwise. The hyperlink below includes a video which illustrates this as Sherlock attempts to analyze Irene Adler and then in comparison, John Watson.

Sherlock Tries to Analyze Irene Adler

The use of technology in BBC’s modern twist of Sherlock greatly differs from the state of the art magnifying glass used in the classic Sherlock Holmes stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Modern technology like cell phones and computers are continually present throughout the show and are used to supplement the plot along with the editing, showing text messages as they appear on screen for the viewer to read. Clearly, modern technology plays a major role in the production and viewer understanding of BBC’s Sherlock.

While both versions of “The Scandal in Bohemia” revolve around a woman’s ability to match Sherlock in intelligence, Irene Adler’s choice of dress in the TV series is an important element to consider in modern day society We first see Adler as very confident and masculine: when deciding what to wear upon her first meeting with Sherlock Holmes, Irene Adler decides on wearing her “battle dress”. She also uses imagery of blood and war in a way that could be perceived as masculine and aggressive. Compared to Irene in Conan Doyle’s story, Irene Adler’s personality in Sherlock is bold and powerful. Irene does not come across as dainty and feminine as in Doyle’s edition. Adler displays a masculine personality by being over confident, aggressive and describing her encounter as a battle. Adler’s male like persona is a representation of her ability to think and act like a man and to be in control.

In the same moments, Irene can be perceived as feminine through her naked appearance and her sexuality. This femininity does not take away her dominance but rather assists Irene in outsmarting Sherlock and throwing him off guard. Adler’s nudity gives her an immense amount of power over Sherlock Holmes: he asks her to cover up after the shock of seeing her naked. He appears weak and consumed by the distraction of her nudity. This power struggle suggests that men are still addicted and flawed by their obsession with women and sex and hints that women have the ability to use this addiction to their advantage such as Adler did. Simply put, to remain in control a woman must think like a man but use their feminine values to obtain what they want.

The television series, Sherlock, suggests that nowadays that the correct balance of femininity and masculinity enables someone to be in power. Irene Adler’s blurred lines of masculinity and femininity is what enables her to have more power than Sherlock in this particular scene. At the same time, I would like to pose the question: At what point does using your sexuality for power not become okay? Irene’s nudity also calls into question the normatively of being naked and a role such as a dominatrix has in today’s society. It highlights the commonality of seeing a naked woman in modern cinematography and that there is still appears to be an unbalance of female and male roles in power. While gender roles have become more equalitarian, nudity and sex still play a dominant role in the power play between the sexes.

“’I won’t be able to wear an evening gown for two weeks, you brute.’ He grinned humbly, said, ‘I’m no damned good, darling,’ made an exaggerated bow, and went out again.” page 117

Throughout the course of the novel, The Maltese Falcon, there has been a wide array of action, drama and literary significance. One of the more interesting aspects of the novel is that the relationships within the story set a foundation for many other literary works, motion pictures and way of thinking. Noting the interactions between the strong detective, Sam Spade, and his various mistresses sets a foundation of the stereotype stating that men are men and cannot control their temper.

When Spade speaks with Effie Perine, his secretary and mistress, she tells him that Brigid O’Shaughnessy, another mistress, has gone missing. This unleashes Spade’s barbaric temper, which results in him clenching Effie’s arms with such force that it leaves a mark. When Spade finally returns to a calm and collected state, he has no shame in admitting: “I’m no damned good” (117). Despite the fact that what he is saying is true, he does not mean what he says. As he spoke the words, his actions did not match the severity of the situation. The moment he “grinned humbly” (117), the magnitude of the brutality completely diminished. His “exaggerated bow” (117) is rather comical after his smirk shortly preceding this action. The description placed on Sam Spade’s reaction parallels that of many men during this time and throughout more recent times. There is not a large concern for the woman involved; there is simply a statement of having “a most violent temper”(110) and being nothing more then a “brute” (117). A sarcastic statement followed by a comical gesture undermines the negativity in her speech. She is not taken seriously, her physical along with mental well being are not the priority, and instead, she is made to be over dramatic.

This idea of men not taking responsibility for their “violent temper” (110) lays a foundation for the way many people view men. In Tennessee William’s A Streetcar Named Desire, Stanley Kowalski plays a much harsher Sam Spade in regards to relationships. These portrayals of women being subjected to abuse date back nearly twenty years earlier to the time of The Maltese Falcon. Many women today still believe in this stereotype that men cannot control their inner “brute” (117).  This novel has the beginning of the incorporation of mental and physical abuse in a relatively modern day society.