Class Blog

Sherlock’s Mirror Image

As Sherlock, Irene, and Mycroft sit in the elegant dining room to negotiate, Sherlock sits quietly and patiently while Irene states her demands. Once Sherlock figures out what he wants to say and how to say it, he is quickly shot down and equally refuted by Irene. This battle goes on as each of them strike observational blows at each other until finally, Sherlock proves his point and silences Irene. These battles between Holmes and Adler occur frequently and fiercely throughout the novel and the film, with each character holding their own victories from time to time.
The concept of battling between Sherlock and Irene was relevant from the outset of their relationship. As Sherlock searches for something to wear for their first meeting, Irene picks out her “battle dress” to combat that. The back and forth action between each of the two individuals continue on throughout their interactions with each other, despite what was happening around them, perhaps suggesting that they may not be as individual as they seem.
Irene, in faking death, leads Sherlock to believe that he has won the battle since he now possesses the phone with all of the information on it. However, Irene outsmarts him by faking her own death and coming back to take back the phone. In another instance, Sherlock feels that he has outsmarted Irene yet again when he analyzes the email and figures out the plot to destroy the plane, however, he is simply playing into yet another trap set by the cunning Irene Adler.
While it may seem like the tension between Sherlock and Irene is far too strong for any connection to be made, the frequency and intensity of these back and forth battles of with and the relative evenness of the competitors show how each of them, in essence, are mirror images or equals to themselves.

Irene’s new identity as a dominatrix in the BBC’s “Sherlock” is an unneeded aspect of her character, causing her to seem weaker than her counterpart in Doyle’s original rendition.  In the book, Irene is portrayed as a kind hearted, beautiful actress with an affinity for creating scandals;this image of Irene is juxtaposed against the overly masculine, overly power-wielding Irene we get from the show.  Although it can be inferred that Irene is more masculine than most women in the book, Doyle offers it as subtext when calling her “the woman”(1), having her dress like a man, and having her wit match that of a man.  This masculine trait is supposed to be in the subtext because Irene needs to be a formidable opponent to Holmes while still remaining feminine, proving that women can outsmart men.  In the show, however, the inflation of Irene’s masculine identity only causes her to seem more transparent and superficial, causing her to seem like less of a challenge.

In the book, it is Irene’s deceiving kindness and appearance which make her seem to be an unlikely match for Holmes, yet she proves that the previous assessment of her is a fallacy through wit and trickery.  In the show, when we see Irene, she is a dominatrix, an obvious antagonist for Holmes due to her relationship with power and and obviously masculine female; this leaves no need for her to prove her abilities because she is presented as Holmes’ nemesis from the get go.  We can already tell that  she is a match for him wit-wise and we know she leans towards the side of evil, so there is nothing else to discover about her character.  In the novel, her true nature lies under the surface, causing her to appear to be an unpredictable character and, thus, an even more formidable match for Holmes.

 

The tales of Sherlock Holmes are captured within the past, the shining age of detectives in silly hats. However, the television show Sherlock follows that trend by no means and gives the timeless detective a cellphone and a computer, thrusting him into the modern age. With such a challenge as adapting the old to the new, Doyle’s stories not only get a new coat of paint, but also another layer of story.

First off, translating a story from the 30’s and placing it in the 21st century is an impressive feat. The producer’s of the show must be well versed in the original tales and then be able to have it make sense within it’s new world. Simply having the text applied to modern day would be plain and boring, so the next great step is to twist it into a thrilling modern mystery.

Technology, technology is key within the new Sherlock which gives the show that new spin to make things fresh. More so, it allows for the story to be enriched with information not clearly seen in the original novel. It could be as simple as the addition of a modern fire alarm to reveal Irene Adler’s photos rather than the traditional exclamation of “Fire!”. More importantly the introduction of the cellphone (the device Ms. Adler’s stores her photos and other information), with Sherlock’s cellphone, he and Ms. Adler communicate throughout the episode showing that deeper relation of the two that is known yet not explicitly obvious. It is a great addition that makes things interesting yet true to the classic lore.

From phones to cars and smoke to fire alarms, the modernization of Sherlock’s cases is an enjoyable re-imagining of the beloved mysteries. Staying true to its roots, but making it different in a very fascinating and fun way is an accomplishment any producer should be proud of.

 

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.