Molly Hooper

[bedelia1984]

I've been thinking of re-watching the version of Jane Eyre from your link Artemis, this could be a sign!

 

I don't see Sherlock as a Rochester type, but I do think BC would make a great Rochester, and LB would be fantastic as Jane.

 

I first read Jane Eyre as a teenager and didn't find it that romantic- because it seemed like Rochester loved Jane's ordinariness- or 'sane-ness'- more than he loved her- that he opted for her as the opposite of his insane wife, rather than for herself. I might rethink it if I read the book again now. I think as you age you realise how rare and wonderful a truly sane and calm disposition can be, in a way that is hard to appreciate in your school days.

 

Molly and Jane are quite similar characters in a lot of ways, and perhaps their ordinariness is something which is made a feature of in both the stories they inhabit, so it is a natural comparison. Jane is something of a refuge for Rochester from the rest of his life. I know Molly isn't portrayed as that in Sherlock, but I could see a version of their relationship happening (maybe offscreen) where that is the case. It seemed like in season 4 they hinted that there was more to the friendship than we were seeing, and that something like that could be the case for them- like maybe a little bit in the idea that for his birthday he goes for cake with Molly and John, that sort of thing.

 

I really missed the show this Christmas! I must choose an episode for a re-watch. Maybe Scandal or The Abominable Bride.

[Hikari]

I've been thinking of re-watching the version of Jane Eyre from your link Artemis, this could be a sign!

 

I don't see Sherlock as a Rochester type, but I do think BC would make a great Rochester, and LB would be fantastic as Jane.

 

I first read Jane Eyre as a teenager and didn't find it that romantic- because it seemed like Rochester loved Jane's ordinariness- or 'sane-ness'- more than he loved her- that he opted for her as the opposite of his insane wife, rather than for herself. I might rethink it if I read the book again now. I think as you age you realise how rare and wonderful a truly sane and calm disposition can be, in a way that is hard to appreciate in your school days.

 

Molly and Jane are quite similar characters in a lot of ways, and perhaps their ordinariness is something which is made a feature of in both the stories they inhabit, so it is a natural comparison. Jane is something of a refuge for Rochester from the rest of his life. I know Molly isn't portrayed as that in Sherlock, but I could see a version of their relationship happening (maybe offscreen) where that is the case. It seemed like in season 4 they hinted that there was more to the friendship than we were seeing, and that something like that could be the case for them- like maybe a little bit in the idea that for his birthday he goes for cake with Molly and John, that sort of thing.

 

I really missed the show this Christmas! I must choose an episode for a re-watch. Maybe Scandal or The Abominable Bride.

 

Both Jane and Molly appear very ordinary, un-confident or mousy on a superficial impression but as we get to know them we see that actually they are both incredibly mentally strong, personally brave, feisty women, with a strong, guiding internal moral principle.  They may feel timid or scared at times, but they master those feelings to assert themselves against overbearing individuals when it counts.  And familiarity causes us to reassess the description of them as 'plain'.  In actuality they are anything but plain--they just do not put themselves forward as persons to be ostentatiously admired, and are content to be more in the background.  Until some crisis propels them to marshall that inner strength they possess and move to the forefront.

 

In Jane Eyre, we get the benefit of the heroine's own words and thoughts; with Molly, we have to guess what she's thinking.  But I think that Molly Hooper was indeed modeled on Jane Eyre, and Loo brings her to life vividly in a deft economy of scenes.  To me her standout moment was in Barts' lab, confronting Sherlock Holmes with his cavalier drug use with the Slaps Heard 'Round the World.  That scene has very much the flavor of Jane confronting her boss, Mr. Rochester over his treatment of her.  'We are physically tiny and unexceptional and easy to overlook, but We Shall NOT be Overlooked, and we demand respect!" is what that scene says to me.

[gerry]

I wasn’t here back when this article was posted on the net so I don’t know if it was ever discussed here but in case anyone’s interested, this is a follow up interview with LB about the ILY call scene and Moffat’s interview with EW in which Moffat mentions what he thinks happened in the aftermath. Thought it was interesting in light of the posts in the TGG thread last week. LB apparently agrees with JP over the SM comments but LB agrees with me about the impact on Molly so there’s that. Neither particularly matters in the grand scheme of the things. On another note, the brits saying “getting the hump” is very strange and amusing to me at the same time!

 

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2017-09-07/sherlocks-louise-brealey-sets-the-record-straight-over-her-disagreement-with-steven-moffat/

[Arcadia]

Loo's the best. :wub:

[bedelia1984]

Lovely interview, thanks Gerry.

 

I think she's totally right- he's just one of those creative types that gets really prickly when questioned about decisions he made in his work- especially so when he knows people have a point.

[gerry]

Maybe so Bedelia but I’m not sure it reflects well on him in any case. I do like that she reflects the tone I think SM was in when he answered the question, ie. Annoyed, because I think that was what the quote felt like to me, not the joke people thought he was saying. I do think it’s interesting that she said he didn’t actually believe what he said about Molly (the shagging). I wish I could believe that but I’m still having trouble with that concept given the answer in its entirety.

 

Maybe it’s the difference in Twitter versus a verbal interview but I do also wonder if she was underselling how she felt about the whole thing. The Twitter response she wrote did come off more angry than she said she was. In any case, I was happy that she stood by her comments rather than back off them.

[bedelia1984]

 For the record, I agree it doesn't reflect well, what he said really annoyed me. I felt like Louise was short-changed on screen time, and she did that scene so beautifully but they gave her no real resolution for it, and what Steven said robbed her of the credit due for how well she acted it. Even the fact that he gave her a heads up rather than just admitting he's misspoken publicly annoys me, it has tones of, 'oh this woman might be a bit silly and get upset about what I've said even though I've actually been very sensible', about it.

 

And I don't think it's true that it wasn't important to Sherlock's own character how that ILY scene was resolved- however he felt afterwards it would have been relevant for the audience to know too. Seemed like a cop out to me. It's not the TFP thread so I won't get into the irritations of so much time of the finale devoted to non recurring characters, so little resolution for regulars, etc.

 

Of course it probably doesn't help that he already gets a lot of flack for treating female characters poorly, I'm sure that must stick in his craw a bit (though strangely not enough to put a bit more thought into how he writes for, or at least speaks about his female characters publicly). So, when questioned about leaving Molly's story unresolved (and keeping in mind he's already killed off Mary in the same season) I can imagine it really got to him to be questioned about it.

 

In my head, Louise was being classy but was actually very irritated at the way SM spoke about her character. What he said was nonsense, and it didn't do justice to her work either, but unfortunately you might not work much in television by calling out successful show creators on their BS at every given opportunity. 

 

Also, it seems like his and Mark's original (terrible) idea of putting Molly actually in a coffin had been poorly received too. He must have been pretty much ready to tell everyone who had an opinion on Molly to get stuffed at that point.

[Arcadia]

Bedelia ... empathy for a creative person ... how dare you!????! :D

 

I had the same take ... he (and almost everyone else connected with the show) seemed fed up with everyone and his dog having an opinion about the direction the show should have taken. I can't point to anything specific that makes me think that ... just a general vibe all through "setlock" that the fun was gone, and then the lack of communication from everyone after the season aired. 

 

Still a stupid thing for Moffat to say, though.

 

[gerry]

Also, it seems like his and Mark's original (terrible) idea of putting Molly actually in a coffin had been poorly received too. He must have been pretty much ready to tell everyone who had an opinion on Molly to get stuffed at that point.

100% agree with everything you said but this last part.... Isn’t it baffling that it took them so long to listen to what everyone else said? I mean, how could they have thought that would be a good idea? I do wonder how long into the process before they rewrote the scene? Moffat made it sound like it was last minute but who knows? It’s funny because in other interviews he pats himself on the back about how good the scene turned out but he certainly didn’t like being called on the fact that he left it unresolved.

 

AFA Sherlock’s side of it, Gatiss per the DVD extra made it seem like it was intentional that you’re left wondering whether Sherlock meant it or just said it to save her life so maybe lack of follow up was intentional rather than an oversight because neither of them wanted to answer that question from Sherlock’s POV.

[bedelia1984]

Bedelia ... empathy for a creative person ... how dare you!????! :D

 

 

:D Haha, I might as well have come clean and said when I make a mistake in creative work and someone points it out, it really annoys me, so alas, Steven, I understand all too well how you feel!

 

Gerry- I think Mark has just enough finesse to have made their last minute efforts sound a bit more deliberate than they were.

 

Of course, Mark also IMO has a greater appreciation for ambiguity and sees both sides of that relationship of Molly and Sherlock, whereas Steven has a head full of Irene Adler.

 

Then again, I also like the idea that Mark somehow tricked Steven into leaving Molly/Sherlock as a possibility, and Steven is now enraged by the fact. Maybe I'll just believe that from now on. :huh:

[gerry]

 

 

Bedelia ... empathy for a creative person ... how dare you!????! :D

 

:D Haha, I might as well have come clean and said when I make a mistake in creative work and someone points it out, it really annoys me, so alas, Steven, I understand all too well how you feel!

But in most lines of work, you have to accept constructive criticism, otherwise you will never improve. No one is perfect. I don’t know, creative people are a conundrum.

 

Then again, I also like the idea that Mark somehow tricked Steven into leaving Molly/Sherlock as a possibility, and Steven is now enraged by the fact. Maybe I'll just believe that from now on. :huh:

I like the idea of SM enraged so I enjoy this theory! Not sure how likely it is though. Oh well, I enjoy it anyway!

[Arcadia]

Constructive criticism, yes. I doubt if Moffat hears very much of that; at least, not from "the fans."

[bedelia1984]

It might go back to what Arcadia was saying above, about a general feeling of 'too much' negative or overly-pushy feedback from fans on the series in general. The Jonh-lock thing seemed to have got a bit out of control, and it seemed like the writers and possibly performers too had just had enough of the fans saying how they wanted the series to be.

 

I do think there is a big difference between saying a storyline, within the context of an episode wasn't properly resolved, and people writing complaint letters to the BBC about a favourite pairing not getting together- but I can kind of see how all that feedback clumped together in Moffat's view- and it all became a bit tiresome.

 

And I also agree that constructive criticism should be taken on- but then Moffat has had so much about women characters, and he still seems to struggle- maybe the guy is genuinely doing his best? Don't watch Dr. Who myself, but Molly has probably gotten off better than most, at least she's still alive.

 

I genuinely think Moffat is baffled that people weren't spending all the time after TFP talking about how cool it was that Sherlock had to choose between killing his brother and his best friend etc- like all those high-pressure antics were what people were interested in. It puzzles me so much that he could make a series that was overall such high quality and so loved, and in the end have so little idea what fans had really loved about it.

 

 

 

Then again, I also like the idea that Mark somehow tricked Steven into leaving Molly/Sherlock as a possibility, and Steven is now enraged by the fact. Maybe I'll just believe that from now on.  :huh:

I like the idea of SM enraged so I enjoy this theory! Not sure how likely it is though. Oh well, I enjoy it anyway!

 

 

It seems like the kind of thing MG would enjoy too- I can imagine him in the editing suite working on the final montage- telling Steven he should really just pop to the pub and enjoy a pint while he finishes up, he's been working too hard- and possibly cutting out that last few seconds where Irene Adler was going to appear at Baker Street...

[gerry]

Constructive criticism, yes. I doubt if Moffat hears very much of that; at least, not from "the fans."

I wasn’t talking about fans. Look at how Moffat describes feedback from Sherlock people about that coffin scene. Moftiss didn’t initially listen to them and defended the scene but it wasn’t until “everyone” insisted that the scene sucked that they rewrote the scene, last minute. The way he reacted to the EW interviewer also struck me as someone not willing to critically assess his work. Maybe it is based on a buildup of negative feedback from all fronts but the way LB referenced him not liking the question like she could just picture the circumstances and how quickly he got annoyed makes me wonder if that is just how SM has always been. Like how LB described how she had to really lobby to get the Xmas scene changed so that Molly had some sort of reaction. He doesn’t strike me as self aware or really all that accepting of feedback regardless of where it comes from.

[T.o.b.y]

I know nothing about Mr Moffat aside from the fact that he is the co-creator of Sherlock and apparently gets a lot of online hate from people who oddly enough identify as fans of his work.

 

From the little I have seen of him in interviews, I think I agree with you, Bedelia, he really does seem to have hardly any understanding of why people love the show. I have heard something similar about George Lucas and Star Wars.

 

I must say though, whenever I hear Mr Moffat talk about Sherlock Holmes in general, there's a lot I agree with or at least find very intriguing. And for me, BBC Sherlock works really well as a kind of in-depth commentary on the character, the Doyle stories and the legend they inspired.

 

I don't find anything problematic about the female characters on Sherlock except what I personally consider a poor artistic choice to make them more "empowered" or whatever they were going for, during series 3 and 4. To me, Molly, Mrs Hudson, Sally Donovan, Sarah and even Irene are fairly believable people who fit organically into the story and just happen to be female. Mary and Eurus, however, have too much of a conscious effort to make a statement about them for me to really appreciate their presence. Janine works better, imo. I am not fond of her but for different reasons.

[gerry]

It puzzles me so much that he could make a series that was overall such high quality and so loved, and in the end have so little idea what fans had really loved about it.

I agree. There’s much he doesn’t seem to understand though... why he receives criticism for how he writes female characters and why others aren’t obsessed with his Irene Adler like he is are just two of them.

[gerry]

I don't find anything problematic about the female characters on Sherlock except what I personally consider a poor artistic choice to make them more "empowered" or whatever they were going for, during series 3 and 4. To me, Molly, Mrs Hudson, Sally Donovan, Sarah and even Irene are fairly believable people who fit organically into the story and just happen to be female.

I couldn’t disagree more.

 

Making Mrs. Hudson a former stripper who drives Aston Martins and having Molly slap Sherlock 3 times were not believable to me and were written by Moffat. Janine was the only character that I think Moffat wrote as multidimensional even if you don’t like her. Did Moffat ever write Sarah? I also found nothing believable about Irene. She was pretty OTT to me.

[bedelia1984]

 

Constructive criticism, yes. I doubt if Moffat hears very much of that; at least, not from "the fans."

I wasn’t talking about fans. Look at how Moffat describes feedback from Sherlock people about that coffin scene. Moftiss didn’t initially listen to them and defended the scene but it wasn’t until “everyone” insisted that the scene sucked that they rewrote the scene, last minute. The way he reacted to the EW interviewer also struck me as someone not willing to critically assess his work. Maybe it is based on a buildup of negative feedback from all fronts but the way LB referenced him not liking the question like she could just picture the circumstances and how quickly he got annoyed makes me wonder if that is just how SM has always been. Like how LB described how she had to really lobby to get the Xmas scene changed so that Molly had some sort of reaction. He doesn’t strike me as self aware or really all that accepting of feedback regardless of where it comes from.

 

 

I think there are two sides here: he obviously gets into a real snit when he's questioned, but I would give a lot of credit to him for listening to Louise and changing the dialogue to compensate, in Scandal, and for getting rid of that awful coffin bit.

 

In my opinion, a real sexist wouldn't even listen to the criticism, let alone alter what we see onscreen accordingly. It takes a bit of vision and flexibility to say, okay Louise is right, Molly needs to say something here. He also was able to listen to people about the coffin scene.

 

So, I guess what I'm saying is that I don't think Moffat is actually a real, dyed in the wool sexist, he's just a bit misguided. I've worked with real sexists, and they 100% do not listen to or care about a female point of view, no matter how well qualified that view is. It is like talking to a brick wall.

 

What he says in the media makes him seem like a bit of a git sometimes, but what he lets make it to the screen probably says more about who he is as an artist, in my view.

[Boton]

 

I do think there is a big difference between saying a storyline, within the context of an episode wasn't properly resolved, and people writing complaint letters to the BBC about a favourite pairing not getting together- but I can kind of see how all that feedback clumped together in Moffat's view- and it all became a bit tiresome.

 

And I also agree that constructive criticism should be taken on- but then Moffat has had so much about women characters, and he still seems to struggle- maybe the guy is genuinely doing his best? Don't watch Dr. Who myself, but Molly has probably gotten off better than most, at least she's still alive.

 

 

 

I personally think the Moffat-era female characters on Dr. Who were well done in the aggregate. There were a lot of different strengths, weaknesses, and quirks shown, and, to me, they came across as just as nuanced as the men.

 

I don't find anything problematic about the female characters on Sherlock except what I personally consider a poor artistic choice to make them more "empowered" or whatever they were going for, during series 3 and 4. To me, Molly, Mrs Hudson, Sally Donovan, Sarah and even Irene are fairly believable people who fit organically into the story and just happen to be female. Mary and Eurus, however, have too much of a conscious effort to make a statement about them for me to really appreciate their presence. Janine works better, imo. I am not fond of her but for different reasons.

 

I agree with this.  When you try to write every woman as "empowered," then the characters start becoming one-dimensional.  

[gerry]

I think there are two sides here: he obviously gets into a real snit when he's questioned, but I would give a lot of credit to him for listening to Louise and changing the dialogue to compensate, in Scandal, and for getting rid of that awful coffin bit.

Considering how late in the game the changes were, I wonder if the changes were his choice or forced on him? I doubt you’d ever get a straight answer on that, but yes if they were his choice, he gets some credit. I’m skeptical that it was his choice. Given his quotes in interviews, something like this makes me think a producer, actor, etc. was able to force the changes and he was procrastinating or resisting the changes until forced to do so. Otherwise why wait until the last minute?

[Arcadia]

Have you ever engaged in a creative process? If yes, then you know that it doesn't always run a true course; there's a lot of fits and starts, trying this and trying that, falling in love with one bit over here even though it doesn't fit with the rest, etc. It can involve listening to what other people say, but it also involves listening to an inner voice, a bit of self blindness, a lot of doubt, sudden flashes of inspiration. Etc. Just like people themselves, it's often messy and illogical. And it doesn't run on a timetable. (Oh how I wish it did. :smile:)

 

And yes, criticism hurts. The source doesn't matter; it all hurts. It's part of the job, but that doesn't make it any the more pleasant. I think I detect a certain amount of defensiveness in some of Moffat's (and Gatiss') comments, and yes, I think they'd make a better impression if they could control that. But still, I can empathize. Sometimes the limelight is uncomfortably bright.

[gerry]

I really resent the implication that unless you’re in the creative industry that you can’t possibly know how criticism feels. People in all walks of life and careers work with deadlines, in high stress environments, have a boss or career that they feel reflects themselves and don’t like the annual review when they get rated on that assessment. I don’t particularly like giving reviews either but guess what? At some point you become an adult and realize it’s part of a learning process that’s required to grow as a lawyer, accountant, teacher, manager or whatever that career may be. That criticism can also help you figure out if you’re in the right position for you. And given that moffat chose a career he knew was dependent on selling work to an audience in a very expensive industry, what exactly do you expect? You may not like it but you’d think he would have developed better coping mechanisms by now. It’s like he doesn’t even expect to be questioned about anything and everyone is supposed to love everything he writes without fail. That’s not remotely realistic.

[bedelia1984]

 

I think there are two sides here: he obviously gets into a real snit when he's questioned, but I would give a lot of credit to him for listening to Louise and changing the dialogue to compensate, in Scandal, and for getting rid of that awful coffin bit.

Considering how late in the game the changes were, I wonder if the changes were his choice or forced on him? I doubt you’d ever get a straight answer on that, but yes if they were his choice, he gets some credit. I’m skeptical that it was his choice. Given his quotes in interviews, something like this makes me think a producer, actor, etc. was able to force the changes and he was procrastinating or resisting the changes until forced to do so. Otherwise why wait until the last minute?

 

 

Honestly, my overall impression of TFP was that it was put together in a rush- as if the script wasn't quite there yet but most of the people were available- minus Rupert Graves, possibly, and so they tweaked and chopped and changed on the fly, which is why Lestrade's story goes nowhere, Molly's is unresolved, and the overall feel of the episode is too heavily weighted in one set-piece (the prison).

 

So I think it's more likely that the coffin angle was a first-draft-ish idea that they never had time to develop into something better, and were going to shoot anyway, for lack of time to do better. I actually get that feel from a few things- that they didn't have enough time to let the ideas breathe, to sit with what they were doing and make sure it felt right for the show. I know that sounds a bit airy fairy, but it's just how I perceive the episode. It's not as well considered as other ones, to me- though I concede some aspects, such as Sherlock's relationship with Mycroft, were considered very deeply.

 

About artists behaving like grown-ups- I do think there is a part of any good artist that never does fully grow up- and that's often part of what makes them good- how else can anyone make believe for a living?

[J.P.]

Seriously, I have a terrible suspicion that all best parts about Sherlock might be just side effects of the right mix of people and circumstances. That's why, after thinking it over, I don't agree with what SM told about the "magic". It does happen on set, at least a big part of it.

[T.o.b.y]

What's terrible about that?