blake kathryn
No title available
trying on a metaphor
No title available
No title available
#extradirty
No title available
KIROKAZE
No title available
❣ Chile in a Photography ❣
I'd rather be in outer space 🛸
art blog(derogatory)
oozey mess
Aqua Utopia｜海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Lint Roller? I Barely Know Her
Discoholic 🪩
Game of Thrones Daily
h
roma★
cherry valley forever
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Portugal
seen from Malaysia
seen from Malaysia
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Panama
seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
seen from Canada
seen from Netherlands
seen from Malaysia
seen from Switzerland
seen from Portugal
seen from United States
seen from Germany
@221b-irregulars
I'm sorry I'm just rediscovering Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes, and I just watched Wisteria Lodge, and I don't know what this ask is for but I was extremely offended by use of negro/mulatto to describe the man in the window and I wonder are they just want to be authentic or they just don't care/supremacists? I guess I want to be reassured!
they were using the exact wording from the books, and the books contain lots of racist Victorian terminology so :/
-T
I'm sorry, I just have to rant. Christopher Hollier is not a good writer. I noticed that Marchioness was his first episode, and it shows. Elementary has always been a show of nuances, and he just took everyone else's hard work and wasted it. Of course the whole show is about Holmes, despite all the other episodes being more about Watson as the hero. Of course Mycroft coming back can only mean women troubles and women as the plot points -
[contd] - and Watson going off to be with Mycroft because Sherlock had stolen his fiance. None of it seemed real, and it would be nice for Holmes to be utterly wrong about that because he was simply being jealous. The mystery plot wasn’t bad but it wasn’t particularly interesting either, and I liked the touch of Sherlock wishing that he was born in a different time, but honestly - those are easy plot points, easy character development. This sort of writing is better on those cookie cutter white men shows where the whole story is about white men and nobody else. This is Elementary, this is about people, and about showing how unreliable a narrator Watson had been in the real stories, because we finally get to see Watson in her true colors. Mycroft coming back should have been a family case with their father; Sherlock believing Watson would sleep with his brother should have been his continued jealousy and fear of losing Joan, and really - it wouldn’t have mattered at all if Sherlock was born in a different time, because he had been an addict back then too. It’s just that during cases, he was addicted to adrenaline rather than cocaine. In the end, he’s always been an addict. Please, more episodes like Poison Pen and less like this one. It’s quite disappointing; I’m just going to tell people not to watch this one. -exhales- Okay, I’m done.
I couldn’t see the ep on Thursday and after all the disappointed recaps I’ve read, it’s been hard to convince myself that I should catch up! (Of course, I feel like I’ve seen half the episode through gif sets anyway.) And now this...I want to watch it for the sake of completeness, but I'm not looking forward to it...
I’ve been disappointed by season 2 so far, honestly. Not enough Joan, no Ms. Hudson, no Alfredo, no further development for Bell, etc, and I think they’ve erased some of Sherlock’s development and growth last season.
Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts & analysis!
-- D
update re: "please let Joan date someone besides cis white guys" twitter campaign-the plan is now to make a couple polite tweets somewhere along the lines of "it would be really nice if Joan's love interests were more diverse",both in the tags and to the writers.I think if everyone tweets whenever instead of all on the same day, it's more likely to have an impact. the politeness is important so that the (hopefully) large amount of tweets is not overwhelming,but the phrasing can totally change.
OK! Thank you and we will see what we can do :)
I started talking about Sherlock with a girl in my theater group, and she argues that Sally Donovan's treatment isn't racist - Sherlock's rude to everyone, and she is no exception. If the event ever arises again, how should I tell her, in simple terms, why Donovan deserves better, and why Sherlock has a racism problem? Besides Soo Lin Yao - I already know that one.
Ask her to name 5 Black women characters in leading roles on TV
You’ve been tending to your self-defense. Well done.
irresistable-revolutions tags:#SHE USES A CANE OMG CANON!SHERLOCK WAS A SINGLE STICK EXPERT #can we just #elementary #the joan watson show #gifs
Elementary preview from TV Guide….pic of Holmes’ brother!
Dear fans of Sherlock Holmes of any persuasion with Netflix,
So recently the Netflix contract with, I assume, Granada ran it’s course and is no longer available. And I’ve seen plenty of posts (rightly) bemoaning the situation. If you love Sherlock Holmes of any sort, please help us get it back! You can go to the livechat feature on Netflix contact page and tell them you want Granada Holmes back. If this gets enough support they will renew the contract faster. Please help! (oh, and if you chat with Josephine, tell her Sterling sent you).
Thank you!
Go and do it, if you can’t watch Granada Holmes there is no point in living.
Even if you’re never gonna watch it, do it for those who will!
Whaaaaat??? Unacceptable!
“Men categorize women in one of four ways: Mothers, virgins, sluts and bitches.” -Syrup, 2013
I can’t be the only one who noticed this, right?
The men in the top three images are (from left to right) Steven Moffat, Stephen Thompson, and Mark Gatiss— the three writers of BBC’s Sherlock.
Now look, as a series, Sherlock has a lot of strong points. However, its portrayal of women is definitely not one of them— not by a long shot.
So, to the men listed above, here is my message to you: reducing women to tired archetypes does not make you a good writer. Demonising women as sluts and bitches does not make you a good writer. Raising women onto pillars as virgins and mothers does not make you a good writer. It only makes you sexist.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe it’s some people’s perception of how these women are being portrayed that’s sexist?
Mrs. Hudson: Yes, in addition to being good friends with John and Sherlock she probably does see them as her sons…and? Mrs. Hudson likes and cares about John and Sherlock just as they like and care about her. It’s called friendship. I wasn’t aware that the subtle dynamics of it had limitations.
Molly: She’s rather innocent and yes hopelessly in love with Sherlock. Does innocence=virginity? Fuck no it doesn’t, just as being promiscuous does not mean that you have had sex. Molly’s smart. She’s kind, loving, and hard-working. She may be naive and fawn over Sherlock, but that in no way makes her any less valuable of a character or negate her worth as a strong, intelligent woman.
Irene: First off, sluts only exist in the eyes of those doing the name calling. Also people need to get the fuck over the idea that sex and sexuality is a bad thing when it’s actually just as natural as anything else in this world. Instead people who understand and are comfortable with this fact are called “sluts.” Irene is totally and completely comfortable with her sexuality and uses it as a tool, a powerful tool that allows her to bring the British government to its knees.
Sally: I personally don’t like Sally, you’re not supposed to like her. But she isn’t a bitch, she just doesn’t like Sherlock and from a police officer’s point of view she finds him suspicious and a threat. She’s just doing her job.
Sherlock is not sexist. None of its writers are sexist. Putting women into categories that you feel their personality traits fit into is sexist.
I’m amazed at people who fail to see the issue with how Sherlock treats women. Is your standard for women set SO LOW that you really think that their treatment here is acceptable?
Mrs. Hudson is probably the best treated character of the bunch, but she is a minor and limited character. She has little autonomy in the course of the story. Her few moments of importance are aimed at characterizing Sherlock, and that’s it. She’s an ok character, but a flat and undeveloped one for the most part. Her one moment of almost depth was when she kept the information hidden from the guys that beat her up, and even then, that whole scene was aimed at creating empathy with SHERLOCK, not on her. From the way it was filmed to the nature of the dialog, Mrs. Hudson exists solely to make Holmes look like a child with a soft spot for his mother figure.
Onto Molly. I do like Molly, but she is horribly mistreated by the narrative and by Sherlock. She is constantly verbally abused by Sherlock, treated as pathetic and naive for her ~girly girly~ feelings. The scene where she tried to give him a present is the perfect example of this. Sherlock pushes her around, especially when it comes to her having feelings for him, and the narrative doesn’t really seem to have a problem with that. And I find that to be a serious issue. She is portrayed as weak because she has feelings for Sherlock. The season 2 finale works to somewhat work against this, but only to reenforce that Molly still loves him and will still help him, despite being an emotionally manipulative and abusive ass. Molly isn’t really given a chance to have a life, or interests, or empowerment that don’t COMPLETELY revolve around the man who emotionally abuses her. (Her only step away from this was dating Jim. Yeah, I’m sure that was great.)
I have no idea how people can defend BBC’s Irene. It’s horrific. Her entire portrayal is like a 17 year old boys wet dream. She is seen entirely through a lens of male gaze. I’m honestly not even all that bothered by her hyper-sexualization (other than to role my eyes at how puerile BC Sherlock seems to be about nudity. Uhuhuhu boobies. Watch Sherlock key smash his mouth. Hilarious.) . I AM bothered by the way that she IDENTIFIES as a Lesbian, up to the point where she wants to bang Sherlock. (Ah yes, Lesbians are just waiting for the right man? Excellent stereotype to push, BBC. Thanks a fucking lot.) On top of that, Irene is defeated because of her ~girly girly~ feelings. As Sherlock says sentiment is a “chemical defect of the losing side.” Like with Molly, emotion in women is seem as some kind of weakness (emotion in men is used for Queerbaiting! ~yay~/ugh) On top of all of that, we have the reveal that Irene was ONLY ever a threat because of Moriarty, not because of herself, and she has to be saved by the ~scary scary brown terrorists~ at the end. Super disempowering and gross.
The way that Sally is treated is ALSO super gross. As the ONLY recurring character of color on the show, her poor treatment (along with all the OTHER racism within BBC Sherlock: the ~scary brown terrorists~, the ~scary Chinese mafia~) is really troubling. On top of that, WHAT does Sherlock shame her for? Fucking Anderson. That’s right, our ONLY Woman of Color on the show is derided the first time we meet her as an over-sexual adulterer. Hooray for invoking horrific racial stereotypes!
I hate to think of what you consider to be a GOOD, well-written, complex female character if you think that the above aren’t a problem. BBC Sherlock is an utter mess at writing any character who isn’t a white dude who they can queer-bait with. Their treatment of people of color is horrific, their treatment of women is worrying, their treatment of LGBTQIA+ folk is down right insulting, their constant fat jokes are juvenile, and their complete ignorance about ACTUAL mental conditions is pathetic.
It’s fucking fine if you like BBC Sherlock. But understand that the problems that it has are not some kind of projected failing on OUR part. They are failings the show brought to the tabel, covered in glitter, and then acted so so damn clever for having.
Please also note that Tumblr user thorntonoakenshield still can't bring themselves to like the (only!) WOC character even though they're determined to give weak excuses for the way these women are written.
Bisexual Role Models: Jeremy Brett
So you all need to know who this brilliant man was.
Jeremy Brett, actor from 1954 to 1995. Also known as the quintessential Sherlock Holmes. He wanted to be the best Sherlock Holmes the world had ever seen, and he was.
This was no passing acting role or whim. How dedicated was he to his role?
His most treasured possession on set was his 77-page Baker Street File, which was composed of everything from Holmes’s basic mannerisms to his eating and drinking habits.
In order to get better into his role, he did what plenty of us are familiar with: he made his own headcanons—about how lonely Holmes’s college days were, how brilliant he was at sports, how he didn’t see his father until he was twelve, how his mother was so distant.
When he first got the script for the Granada series The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, he found it so far adapted that he went to the script editor and said, “But you’ve asked me to do Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. These aren’t Sherlock Holmes—Doyle’s stories.” And the editor told him, “Jeremy, you’re here to act. Just get on with it.” So he tipped the table over and his fish dinner landed in the editor’s lap. And that was the beginning of their tousle.
He would take the original story—what he always referred to as ‘the canon’—with him to every filming and fight for accuracy to Doyle’s stories, to the point that Granada gave him an extra week for rehearsals. So that the first week he would fight for Doyle, and the second week he would rehearse.
Also, his nickname for Sherlock Holmes was the “damaged penguin”, and if you don’t think that’s the greatest you can get out of my face.
He was Sherlock Holmes for ten years, and made 36 hour long episodes, and five feature-length specials. And he did all this while struggling with manic-depressive disorder, cardiomyopathy, and dyslexia. He continued playing Holmes even as his heart grew to twice its normal size, his general health and appearance deteriorated, and he had such trouble breathing that he needed an oxygen mask on set.
His only comment?
"But darlings, the show must go on."
And he was bisexual. He married Anna Massey, though they divorced four years later. After that, he entered a committed relationship with Gary Bond for seven years, part of which they lived together in Notting Hill. He was later in a romantic relationship with Paul Shenar, which lasted five years. His last publicly known relationship was his marriage to Joan Sullivan Wilson, until her death nine years later.
So next time someone gives you shit for your sexuality, you tell them the quintessential Sherlock Holmes was bisexual and he was more brilliant than they could ever hope to be.
THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS
I need to do a similar thing for Conrad Veidt but my entire blog is that right now anyway, but yeah. Yeah. Hats off to the beautiful, amazing and all-too-rarely mentioned bi people of awesome. BUT ESPECIALLY JEREMY MOTHERFUCKING BRETT.
One of the things I hate about acting is that you so seldom get to SEE the genius at work. But I think that what Jeremy Brett never realized was that he was actually more amazing than Sherlock Holmes.
I remember when I was reading that story as a kid, Sherlock goes on and on about The Woman, the only one who ever beat him, and you’re thinking, he’s had better villains than this. And then you click: he fancies her, doesn’t he? That’s what it’s about.
- Steven Moffat on A Scandal in Bohemia.
That quote from Moffat that I just reblogged made me think of something about the way most adaptations have handled Irene Adler and Moriarty.
In the original stories, Adler wasn’t a plot device, she was the adversary in the mystery that matched wits with Holmes, outsmarted him, and that he respects greatly at the end. While she’s still a character in the story, she doesn’t exist for Holmes, and she comes up with a solution to the dilemma that’s actually superior to his.
But Moriarty existed purely as a device for Arthur Conan Doyle to get rid of Holmes. He had to create a reason for Holmes to be willing to sacrifice himself, so he created Moriarty who was given this big criminal past and was said to be super smart. The story itself really didn’t show him being particularly smart, and most of what sets him up is just told to us. At the end he ends up being tossed off a cliff by Holmes after Holmes has ruined his empire. He’s completely a plot device, his entire raison d’etre in the story is focused around Holmes, and to get ACD from point A to point B which is having Holmes die a hero’s death that hopefully the fans would accept. He wasn’t Lex Luthor, he was Doomsday.
Adler didn’t exist as a plot device, she didn’t revolve around Holmes, and she got what she wanted at the end. Moriarty existed just to facilitate Doyle getting rid of Holmes, everything he does in that story revolves around Holmes, and Holmes gets what HE wants at the end (even without Holmes coming back to life, it had already been established Holmes was prepared to die to get rid of Moriarty).
Yet in almost every adaptation, it’s the opposite. Adler is the plot device, she’s a romantic interest, she’s a hostage, she’s the fake out, she’s the bait, etc… and Moriarty is the active agent who is smarter than Holmes and outwits him (at least until he’s defeated) and that Holmes respects as an equal. Adler tends to exist for Holmes, revolves around Holmes, and Moriarty is the greater character with his own story.
The Moffat quote makes me suspect that a lot of boys (him included) grew up reading A Scandal in Bohemia, rolling their eyes and going “stupid chick, he probably let her go just because he likes her, why else would he think she’s so great?” while reading the much less fleshed out Moriarty who Holmes defeats and going “WOW WHAT A COOL BRILLIANT DUDE! HE’S SO SMART AND AWESOME. WHAT A WORTHY FOE.” Even though he’s not shown as being so, he’s just said to be so, but he’s a man and he captured the imaginations of boys reading the story, while she’s a woman and they fit her into a slot for women characters (and how women are seen in relation to men in society) and dismissed why she had won such profound respect from Holmes. So when they grew up and wrote the adaptations that now shape how people see these characters, their biases changed the way the characters were represented, and also the way people now see them.
But please, do not let me influence you.
"elementary doesn't feel like sherlock holmes."
I’ve been hearing this claim a lot lately, in various forms, and it’s a little bit unsettling. “Elementary is great, if you just forget that his name is Sherlock." “He just seems like a clever guy whose name happens to be Sherlock." “I’m just not feeling Sherlock Holmes from this character."
There seems to be one “logical" justification that people tend to use, that there is too much changed from the canon to be called Sherlock Holmes (which I will probably address in a later post.)
Instead of the “logical" focus, I thought about the gut reaction portion of it for a bit I think and I figured out why people don’t ~*~feel~*~ Sherlock Holmes in Elementary. And that is that we as audience members of his crime solving adventures, the way he employs his deductions are different from the “Sherlocky" method that is usually employed. The thing is, I don’t think that the “deviation" in deduction style is either substantive or significant.
When Sherlockians think Shelock-style deductions, we usually think wild, rapid-fire conclusions that seem to come out of nowhere that are later explained by joining strenuous networks of circumstances that happen upon something true. What we’ve found over the course of Elementary is that our Sherlock deploys his deductions a bit differently.
Of course, he does have his spurts of “traditionally Sherlockian deductions." He deduces that Joan is a former surgeon, that a patient died on her table, each of his deductions explained later. He finds Moran seemingly miraculously, and calculates the vehicle where thieves have gone with only set of tire tracks. Among other moments, he sounds and feels more like Holmes is traditionally portrayed.
Why? Because when he initially announces deductions, they stimulate the surprise and admiration in his audience because his conclusions seem impossible to come to. It’s only later when he explains how he comes to these conclusions that we feel quite silly after understanding the clever yet simple logical jumps that Sherlock is able to make. There is wonder from the audience (and Watson, famously, in the canon and other adaptions) in the ways of Sherlock’s enigma and independence of thought. He is mysterious and unreachable in his ability.
The original Sherlock Holmes explains it adeptly in A Study in Scarlet:
"I’m not going to tell you much more of the case, Doctor. You know a conjuror gets no credit when once he has explained his trick, and if I show you too much of my method of working, you will come to the conclusion that I am a very ordinary individual after all."
But our Sherlock in Elementary is different. The story was never about him. It was never about how he has a superior intellect or can blow everyone away with his deductions. The story was always about leading his spectators through his thinking process. It was always about working with Joan and Bell and Gregson as equally intelligent people to solve the crimes. It was always about relaying his thinking process out loud, so that everyone reaches the finish line of understanding at the same time instead of leaving his colleagues and his audience in the dust.
The story was always about our dear Watson learning by his side, about her working her way through the cases and receiving feedback from Sherlock as she improves as an investigator. We can see the very poignant message of the story in Snow Angels:
SHERLOCK: They came out of EROC with $33 million in small bills. They loaded their haul onto an ambulance American-made in the late nineties. They haven’t been gone more than an hour.
JOAN: The driver had a lazy eye, the other two men had basketball caps, and one has canine lupus. See how it feels?
If that isn’t a hit in the face I don’t know what is. The tradition of Sherlock Holmes expects us to be impressed with Sherlock’s deductions that come seemingly out of nowhere. We are supposed to applaud his talent and expect an explanation later. Not so in Elementary. From the get-go - the very first episode - Watson establishes that this behavior is patronizing, immature, and unacceptable. The showy shimmer of Sherlock’s deductions is soured once we realize that it actually makes more sense to be upset about Sherlock leaving us behind in the dust, rather than struck with wonder. It’s this arrogant, showy behavior that feels like Sherlock Holmes, but also manages to make everyone around Holmes feel inferior.
If that’s what it means for Sherlock to “feel like Sherlock Holmes" then I don’t want it.
I want our Sherlock, who is still incredibly intelligent and can make great logical leaps without pause, who has a vast knowledge of useful topics for crime-solving, who thinks and acts in such a peculiar way that is characteristic of the Sherlock Holmes from so long ago. There’s no question that Elementary’s Sherlock is Sherlock Holmes. The difference is that he is able to prove himself able to grow and develop as a person, willing to accommodate others. Sherlock Holmes from canon was afraid of being an ordinary man. Sherlock Holmes from Elementary has no qualms with helping make extraordinary of “ordinary" people. And that doesn’t subtract from the integrity of Sherlock Holmes at all.
#that’s it that’s the show
"In height he was rather over six feet, and so excessively lean that he seemed to be considerably taller. His eyes were sharp and piercing, save during those intervals of torpor to which I have alluded; and his thin, hawk-like nose gave his whole expression an air of alertness and decision. His chin, too, had the prominence and squareness which mark the man of determination. His hands were invariably blotted with ink and stained with chemicals, yet he was possessed of extraordinary delicacy of touch, as I frequently had occasion to observe when I watched him manipulating his fragile philosophical instruments."
Holmes, Watson, Moriarty… aka what I did today instead of being a productive member of society.
Just wanted to tell you both that your podcast is a very different and refreshing approach to Sherlock Holmes. - From two seasoned actual Baker Street Irregulars.
Thank you so much! I'm traveling out of the country at the moment so we can't do a new one until next month, but your words mean so much!
-Tassja
