Irene Adler on "Sherlock"

[sfmpco]

And let's be fair... we did get to see a tiny bit of butt crack from Sherlock in the very same episode.

 

I was going to say -- Huh?      Did I miss something? But you're talking about when Mycroft steps on Sherlock's sheet, right?

 

 

 

 

Yep, that would be it!!!  And thus Mycroft earned the adoration of fangirls everywhere.     

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

 

And let's be fair... we did get to see a tiny bit of butt crack from Sherlock in the very same episode.

 

I was going to say -- Huh? Did I miss something? But you're talking about when Mycroft steps on Sherlock's sheet, right?

 

 

Yep, that would be it!!! And thus Mycroft earned the adoration of fangirls everywhere.

At least the adoration of those who noticed. I like the scene (and it's outtake). It's funny & I didn't notice the crack just the upper part of the right cheek.

[Redbeard]

I kind of disagree about how Irene was shown.  I understand the desire to keep things family-friendly, but Moftiss had to find some way of recreating the shock that Victorian audiences would have had about the kind of woman who fascinates and beats Sherlock Holmes.  She was a "well-known adverturess," an opera singer, and a woman who apparently owned or rented her own house in a fairly sketchy neighborhood and went out unescorted every afternoon.  She was in no way a proper lady.  And since we don't really have proper ladies any more (mores the pity...), we have to have an Irene Adler who is comparatively as risque.

 

I can see that but original Irene wasn't any kind of prostitute that we know of.  An "adventuress" sounds so cool!  She could have been anything! Why does it have to be sex?  It just seems so obligatory nowadays.  She could still be strong and rebellious and fascinating with her clothes on couldn't she? 

 

Heck it would be more fitting if Irene was the "assassin trying to be a good person" and Mary was just a normal person (more like Sarah).  I think that would suit both characters more to original canon.  But they can do what they want and changed up both characters to the point that I can't agree with.  And you can't please 100% of the people 100% of the time right.  But then its okay because I watch the show for Sherlock and John anyway.  All the other characters are just gravy. 

[Redbeard]

Also my reaction to sex or violence depends on what I am watching.  I do expect a certain amount of violence going into a show like Sherlock (We all know he is a detective whose world revolves around murderers and criminals...that is what he does!  So a little violence isn't going to shock me).  But I see absolute no need to expect an episode about a dominatrix, clever nudity, sexual overtones, lol.  Just like if I am watching, say a romantic comedy, I wouldn't expect the lead to be brutally raped and murdered for example.  Doing the unexpected sometimes is good, sometimes if its just for shock value it can jar a bit. 

 

Not just the nudity but the dialog, the "I'll have you right here on this table until you beg for mercy" type of stuff.  Seriously?  In Sherlock Holmes?   Sir Arthur Conan Doyle AND Jeremy Brett are probably looking down in dismay.   

[Arcadia]

I'm starting to think this dominatrix thing is a trending male fantasy. They just used the plot again on that new show, "Forever" -- which is a pretty obvious rip off of Sherlock, alas. I like the two lead actors but the unoriginality of it is depressing. This particular episode was so similar to ASiB I actually felt a little ill. Won't be watching that show again.

 

Anyway, that's four shows now I've seen where an exceptionally intelligent man who is distant towards women is instantly fascinated by and sympathetic to a dominatrix. I guess it bothers me because I'm starting to get the message that the only thing a smart man wants from a woman is abuse. Ick. Ick, ick, ick.

[Redbeard]

Yeah its a weird theme, of strong men wanting to be dominated by women (but only in bed mind you).  I know that happens psychologically but doubt it is really THAT common.  And for Sherlock Holmes?  Nope. (In MY opinion).

 

Still thinking about that word "adventuress" (it intrigues me)...it leads me to think she could have been like a female Indiana Jones type, a globe trotting artifact hunter or whatever.  Still could have been embroiled with the royal family for knowing too much about something...maybe she could have been some foreign language interpreter tied up in political intrigue...or maybe keep her as an opera singer / actress whatever who lives a jet set life with a shady past...shady past doesn't have to be as blatantly obvious as DOMINATRIX lol.  I don't know.  I find the topic interesting anyway! 

[Schlauer Fuchs]

That's really interesting, thinking about alternative methods to update Irene - not that I had any problems with Moftiss' version

 

She could also have been a professional journalist or photographer who has travelled the world and who took one scandalous photo, "scandalous" in whatever way - the story could have been similar to Moftiss' version just without the sexy parts.

 

But then, I love this episode the way it is and am happy that they chose this unusual profession for Irene. I wouldn't change it for anything else because it couldn't have been any better for me.

[Boton]

Yeah its a weird theme, of strong men wanting to be dominated by women (but only in bed mind you). I know that happens psychologically but doubt it is really THAT common. And for Sherlock Holmes? Nope. (In MY opinion).

 

Still thinking about that word "adventuress" (it intrigues me)...it leads me to think she could have been like a female Indiana Jones type, a globe trotting artifact hunter or whatever. Still could have been embroiled with the royal family for knowing too much about something...maybe she could have been some foreign language interpreter tied up in political intrigue...or maybe keep her as an opera singer / actress whatever who lives a jet set life with a shady past...shady past doesn't have to be as blatantly obvious as DOMINATRIX lol. I don't know. I find the topic interesting anyway!

Not taking anything away from your great ideas about Irene, but my understanding is that "adventuress" is Victorian euphemism for "woman who sleeps around."

[Redbeard]

Ha ha, well she could still do that. 

[T.o.b.y]

 

Yeah its a weird theme, of strong men wanting to be dominated by women (but only in bed mind you). I know that happens psychologically but doubt it is really THAT common. And for Sherlock Holmes? Nope. (In MY opinion).

 

Still thinking about that word "adventuress" (it intrigues me)...it leads me to think she could have been like a female Indiana Jones type, a globe trotting artifact hunter or whatever. Still could have been embroiled with the royal family for knowing too much about something...maybe she could have been some foreign language interpreter tied up in political intrigue...or maybe keep her as an opera singer / actress whatever who lives a jet set life with a shady past...shady past doesn't have to be as blatantly obvious as DOMINATRIX lol. I don't know. I find the topic interesting anyway!

Not taking anything away from your great ideas about Irene, but my understanding is that "adventuress" is Victorian euphemism for "woman who sleeps around."

 

 

Yes, that is exactly my understanding as well. Victorian literature is full of code words for all the various stuff that was unmentionable in print back then.

 

Now, let me see. What does the original story actually say about Miss Adler?

 

"Of dubious and questionable memory" - okay. Theoretically, that could be anything. But what, especially in a time when not even the word "trousers" could be used in polite company and women didn't have that many choices in life could make a lady's memory dubious and questionable? A scandalous love life is the most probable here.

 

"Your Majesty, as I understand, became entangled with this young person, wrote her some compromising letters, and is now desirous of getting those letters back.” - note, by the way, how this is used almost verbatim later in the Smallwood case in His Last Vow, but for now, focus on "entangled". Come on, how else could the king and Miss Adler have been "entangled" if not in a quite literal sense between the sheets? I doubt she sold him drugs (although she might have done that too, on the side). And those "compromising letters"... If "I long, my darling to have touch etc" was all he wrote in them, I'd be pretty surprised.

 

To further strengthen my theory, here is this question by Sherlock Holmes:

"Was there a secret marriage?”

 

There. Why else would there have been so much as the possibility of a secret marriage if there hadn't been an affair?

 

Nah. The original Miss Adler was meant to be pretty naughty, but Doyle couldn't very well say so outright. All he could do was hint at it in a roundabout way, as was the custom in his time. That's the problem with reading Victorian text nowadays, you have to peel away so much subtext, you get used to doing that and eventually apply it where there's no need at all and end up wildly over- or misinterpreting things (see our boys and what they might have done of an evening when work was slow...)

 

Another issue with Miss Adler and the king is of course class. She's a retired opera signer, he's a nobleman. That makes their connection even more scandalous. They couldn't well translate that into modern times. I think they did a great job creating a character who is truly just as explosive for modern audiences as a woman like Miss Adler would have been back in Doyle's time. That's hard to do. I mean, we are not exactly easily shocked any more, certainly not when it comes to sex.

 

It was wise of them not to attempt that again with Magnussen, who in the original deals mostly in sexual transgressions (or rather, the damaging knowledge thereof).

 

[Arcadia]

Yeah its a weird theme, of strong men wanting to be dominated by women (but only in bed mind you).  I know that happens psychologically but doubt it is really THAT common.  And for Sherlock Holmes?  Nope. (In MY opinion).

Well, interestingly enough, in none of these stories did the protagonist ever actually end up in the sack with the dominatrix (that we know of). Despite their attraction to and defense of the woman, their virtue remained intact. Something about it smacks of a double-standard, but I can't quite pin it down.

[Carol the Dabbler]

And let's be fair... we did get to see a tiny bit of butt crack from Sherlock in the very same episode.

I was going to say -- Huh?      Did I miss something? But you're talking about when Mycroft steps on Sherlock's sheet, right?

 

Yep, that would be it!!!  And thus Mycroft earned the adoration of fangirls everywhere.     

 

Call me slow-witted, but I just realized something.  In "Charles Augustus Milverton," Holmes goes undercover as a plumber.  And plumbers are stereotypically notorious for wearing low-slung jeans that reveal their butt cracks.  So that scene is an obvious canon reference!

 

[SherlockedCAMPer]

 

And let's be fair... we did get to see a tiny bit of butt crack from Sherlock in the very same episode.

I was going to say -- Huh?      Did I miss something? But you're talking about when Mycroft steps on Sherlock's sheet, right?

 

Yep, that would be it!!!  And thus Mycroft earned the adoration of fangirls everywhere.     

 

Call me slow-witted, but I just realized something.  In "Charles Augustus Milverton," Holmes goes undercover as a plumber.  And plumbers are stereotypically notorious for wearing low-slung jeans that reveal their butt cracks.  So that scene is an obvious canon reference!

 

 

An interesting way to update a canon reference (and make fangirls swoon).

[sfmpco]

Too too funny!

[Boton]

Brilliant.  A very modern interpretation.