Irene Adler

[Boton]

Sometimes, I think it is Moffatt who is really "never knowingly under-cliched" when it comes to finding a dominatrix exciting.

[Hikari]

Sometimes, I think it is Moffatt who is really "never knowingly under-cliched" when it comes to finding a dominatrix exciting.

 

I'd have to agree with you there.  If his attitude toward the female gender can be intuited by the way he writes women, and their relation to sex (Doctor Who's Companions are all fairly stereotypically Sexy Young Things--o'course now that the next Doctor will be a woman, I suppose She will have a male SYT for a Companion--unless they propose to make this Doc a lesbian.  I wouldn't put it past Moffat--but I believe he's stepping down from the show)--it seems a bit Neanderthalific.  Or perhaps just Victorian--Women as pretty ornamentation or  les agents provocatueses to Sex Things Up.

 

This is what I am tempted to think.  And then I recall that SM has entrusted his wife with the very important role of series producer . . and his mother-in-law is executive producer.  So it's nepotism, but in a good cause, giving women positions of authority and a large amount of control over the creative content.  Unless 'Producer' just means that Sue Vertue gets to do all the tedious, stress-inducing scut work while her husband and Gatiss run around playing silly buggers.

 

I am interested to know what a day of producing Sherlock entails . . .  S. Moffat is so not my favorite person in the world.  His writing and producing partner is exempted.  I find Mark Gatiss quite appealing, especially if Moffat isn't around.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Carol the Dabbler
to remove overly personal remarks

[Boton]

I am interested to know what a day of producing Sherlock entails . . .  S. Moffat is so not my favorite person in the world.  His writing and producing partner is exempted.  I find Mark Gatiss quite appealing, especially if Moffat isn't around.

 

I think Moffat has talent, and I think he has/had a vision for both Sherlock and Dr. Who, and I think the success of both caught him very much by surprise. Some things he hasn't handled very well, and some things he has.  I do think he needs a nice break, if for no other reason than to give him the privacy back so that he can create without constantly battling the fan voices.

Edited February 5, 2018 by Carol the Dabbler
to remove overly personal remarks from quote

[T.o.b.y]

Hey, resurrecting this thread to pose a question I'm sort of bringing over from lots of other threads.

 

We periodically get into a debate about how you would modernize ACD Irene's character. Opera singers and performers of all sorts were seen as less than respectable in the Victorian era, and you have to somehow get the idea across that Holmes is at minimum intrigued by someone who is not quite socially acceptable.

 

Then we always seem to debate whether making her a dominatrix is going too far or not.

 

So what do you guys think? If you were advising Moftiss when they wrote SiB, how would you modernize Irene so as to maintain that sense of social unacceptability? Would you keep the dominatrix angle, or would you make her something else? (I'll withhold my opinion until some of you have weighed in, because I don't know I feel that strongly about my stance.)

I honestly don't know. You would have had to ask me before series 2. Because now that this Irene Adler exists, she's THE Irene for me and I can't (or won't) imagine her any different.

 

I like her. I was surprised when I first found out how much flak Mr Moffat got for the way he wrote her.

[Boton]

 

Hey, resurrecting this thread to pose a question I'm sort of bringing over from lots of other threads.

 

We periodically get into a debate about how you would modernize ACD Irene's character. Opera singers and performers of all sorts were seen as less than respectable in the Victorian era, and you have to somehow get the idea across that Holmes is at minimum intrigued by someone who is not quite socially acceptable.

 

Then we always seem to debate whether making her a dominatrix is going too far or not.

 

So what do you guys think? If you were advising Moftiss when they wrote SiB, how would you modernize Irene so as to maintain that sense of social unacceptability? Would you keep the dominatrix angle, or would you make her something else? (I'll withhold my opinion until some of you have weighed in, because I don't know I feel that strongly about my stance.)

I honestly don't know. You would have had to ask me before series 2. Because now that this Irene Adler exists, she's THE Irene for me and I can't (or won't) imagine her any different.

 

I like her. I was surprised when I first found out how much flak Mr Moffat got for the way he wrote her.

 

 

I agree with this, too.  I like her, and I thought making her as she is was clever. Then, I even met people in RL who stopped watching the show at the point that she came along because they were offended at her line of work.  That really surprised me.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, I guess they made her scandalous enough then! :-D

 

And that's hard nowadays. So yeah, good job.

 

I suppose it would never have occurred to me to make her a bisexual high-end sex worker who specializes in BDSM and blackmails the royal family but that's due to my limited imagination. Now that she is this way, it seems fitting. Much more so than Mary Morstan as an assassin, that's for sure.

[Boton]

So far, I've liked all of the takes on Irene Adler I've seen in the modern-era Holmes series I've seen.  I like this one, I like Irene in Elementary (at least as far as I watched, which was about 3 seasons/series), and I liked the one in House.  I thought all of them captured an element the original, although none of them got all of her.  That seems fair.

[T.o.b.y]

I never cared much for the original Miss Adler. So there was no Idol to shatter in my case. Maybe that helps. Anyway, I like her and I find her amusing. Offensive? Nah. A little spicy, that's all.

[Arcadia]

I remember thinking at one time that I would've made her a politician, or maybe a politician's aide. Someone powerful who has to make questionable decisions sometimes.

[gerry]

So far, I've liked all of the takes on Irene Adler I've seen in the modern-era Holmes series I've seen. I like this one, I like Irene in Elementary (at least as far as I watched, which was about 3 seasons/series), and I liked the one in House. I thought all of them captured an element the original, although none of them got all of her. That seems fair.

I’m not sure Elementary is a fair comparison to Sherlock considering that Irene Adler was Moriarty’s alter ego and both characters played by one actress. I did find it interesting but that was a pretty unique potrayal. I thought Rachel McAdams was awful as Irene Adler in the Sherlock movie but I’m biased because I don’t think she’s a good actress.

[T.o.b.y]

I remember thinking at one time that I would've made her a politician, or maybe a politician's aide. Someone powerful who has to make questionable decisions sometimes.

How would you have made her scandalous though? Or would you have dropped that angle entirely?

[Boton]

 

So far, I've liked all of the takes on Irene Adler I've seen in the modern-era Holmes series I've seen. I like this one, I like Irene in Elementary (at least as far as I watched, which was about 3 seasons/series), and I liked the one in House. I thought all of them captured an element the original, although none of them got all of her. That seems fair.

I’m not sure Elementary is a fair comparison to Sherlock considering that Irene Adler was Moriarty’s alter ego and both characters played by one actress. I did find it interesting but that was a pretty unique potrayal. I thought Rachel McAdams was awful as Irene Adler in the Sherlock movie but I’m biased because I don’t think she’s a good actress.

 

 

Yeah, I agree Elementary is not a one-to-one comparison among Irenes, but I like the idea that they took "the woman who beat you" to the nth degree and just made Irene into Sherlock's actual enemy.  I thought that was clever, since the original Irene really didn't have all that much to flesh out why she was supposed to be so intriguing; most of what we seem to come back to is mostly fan speculation. Plus I would watch Natalie Dormer do just about anything; she's like a master class in sexuality.

 

I agree about Rachel McAdams; her Irene left me kind of flat. I also didn't like the portrayal of Irene in the Russian Sherlock Holmes, who seemed very juvenile. It doesn't look like Mystery Queen is going to wind up with an Irene character, but I must admit I kind of lost steam watching that and need to get back to it.

[Arcadia]

 

I remember thinking at one time that I would've made her a politician, or maybe a politician's aide. Someone powerful who has to make questionable decisions sometimes.

How would you have made her scandalous though? Or would you have dropped that angle entirely?

 

 

I guess I would have dropped that angle. Does she need to be scandalous? It seems to me Sherlock is intrigued by her because she out-maneuvered him, not because she's scandalous. He even put her down in that regard, with his remark about going naked to make an impression.

 

Upon more reflection, though, I think he'd find a politician boring. He'd be more drawn to someone who's interested in the same kinds of things he is. Y'know, murder and mayhem. Maggots. Himself. Oh, wait ... now I'm describing Molly ....

[Artemis]

How about a lawyer?  Lawyers are generally viewed with derision in the public mind, she'd have access to all sorts of personal information and nasty secrets, and there's room for rivalry, as lawyers and detectives tend to butt heads.  It's also a potentially dangerous job, especially for criminal defense and divorce attorneys.

 

Her story would have to be completely rewritten with something like that though, who knows what it would end up looking like.

 

 

[Boton]

How about a lawyer?  Lawyers are generally viewed with derision in the public mind, she'd have access to all sorts of personal information and nasty secrets, and there's room for rivalry, as lawyers and detectives tend to butt heads.  It's also a potentially dangerous job, especially for criminal defense and divorce attorneys.

 

Her story would have to be completely rewritten with something like that though, who knows what it would end up looking like.

 

That is exactly what they did on House, and I loved it once I realized that Stacy was the Irene character.  She was a lawyer dating House, and therefore she understood exactly what her legal rights were as his power of attorney or temporary medical guardian or whatever she was, and she made the treatment decision that left him alive but lame.  So, on a very personal level, she "beat" him (although not maliciously), and they dropped the scandal angle entirely.

[Artemis]

Oh, I didn’t know that! I’ve seen House but only an episode here or there, not the whole thing. (I should watch the whole thing sometime.)

 

So I guess they couldn’t use that idea then, lol.

[Boton]

Oh, I didn’t know that! I’ve seen House but only an episode here or there, not the whole thing. (I should watch the whole thing sometime.)

 

So I guess they couldn’t use that idea then, lol.

 

You should definitely watch all of House sometime.  There are some really bad episodes (out of 177), but there are some that count as some of my favorite bits of television of all time.

[T.o.b.y]

I guess Irene only needs to be a scandalous person if you want to keep the original case in some form. For her relationship with Sherlock Holmes, it's not all that relevant. Although I think it is noteworthy that Holmes apparently didn't feel like her being an opera singer whom a member of the aristocracy would be ashamed to be seen with was any reason not to admire and respect her. It says something about him, something that I like, that comes through in the modern version when he says "treat her like royalty, Mycroft".

[Artemis]

Although I think it is noteworthy that Holmes apparently didn't feel like her being an opera singer whom a member of the aristocracy would be ashamed to be seen with was any reason not to admire and respect her. It says something about him, something that I like,

I feel the same way, and I struggle to think of many other professions to give her in the modern day where that idea could still come across. But I feel like the “scandal” lies more in her behavior than her profession. I like that Sherlock respects her regardless of her profession, and I’d like to keep that element somehow. I don’t like that he respects her regardless of her criminal behavior. That’s the idea that can go, in my opinion.

[Arcadia]

Yeah, that's a really good way of looking at it. Don't put her down for what she is, but do hold her accountable for what she does. I think that's where I've often had twinges of conscience watching this show; I know everything's basically supposed to be humorous and fantastical, but the breezy way murder and mayhem is shrugged off still bugs me from time to time. Not enough to stop watching it, though. :p

 

I think lawyer would have been a good choice for Irene; maybe an attorney for some sleazy corporation? That's almost scandalous, isn't it? :d

[Carol the Dabbler]

... I recall that SM has entrusted his wife with the very important role of series producer . . and his mother-in-law is executive producer.  So it's nepotism, but in a good cause, giving women positions of authority and a large amount of control over the creative content.  Unless 'Producer' just means that Sue Vertue gets to do all the tedious, stress-inducing scut work while her husband and Gatiss run around playing silly buggers.

 

You may not be aware that Beryl Vertue has been highly respected in the television industry since Steven Moffat was in short trousers.  It was she who arranged, circa 1970, for an American company to buy the US rights to adapt Till Death Us Do Part (which became All in the Family) and Steptoe and Son (Sanford and Son).  She formed her own production company, Hartswood in the 1980s, years before her daughter Sue (who was already in the production business herself, but did not yet work for Hartswood) met Steven Moffat in '96.  She was appointed an OBE in 2000, ten years before Sherlock debuted (and a CBE in 2016). So Steven wasn't doing any favors for Beryl -- if anything, it was the other way around.  (Needless to say, it's working out very well for all concerned.)

 

Y'know, if a man had made remarks similar to yours above, I'd assume that he had a very low opinion of women, and therefore assumed that any success they had was due to some man doing them a favor.  In this case, however, I'll chalk it up to your low opinion of Steven Moffat.  ;)

[gerry]

 

 

 

So far, I've liked all of the takes on Irene Adler I've seen in the modern-era Holmes series I've seen. I like this one, I like Irene in Elementary (at least as far as I watched, which was about 3 seasons/series), and I liked the one in House. I thought all of them captured an element the original, although none of them got all of her. That seems fair.

I’m not sure Elementary is a fair comparison to Sherlock considering that Irene Adler was Moriarty’s alter ego and both characters played by one actress. I did find it interesting but that was a pretty unique potrayal. I thought Rachel McAdams was awful as Irene Adler in the Sherlock movie but I’m biased because I don’t think she’s a good actress.

Yeah, I agree Elementary is not a one-to-one comparison among Irenes, but I like the idea that they took "the woman who beat you" to the nth degree and just made Irene into Sherlock's actual enemy. I thought that was clever, since the original Irene really didn't have all that much to flesh out why she was supposed to be so intriguing; most of what we seem to come back to is mostly fan speculation. Plus I would watch Natalie Dormer do just about anything; she's like a master class in sexuality.

I loved just about everything from the Elementary take of Moriarty/Adler because they did a great job of showing why Sherlock would be utterly fascinated by her but it was definitely enhanced by JLM and ND having awesome chemistry. I also enjoyed the Moriarty/Watson interactions immensely as well.

[gerry]

I don’t like that he respects her regardless of her criminal behavior. That’s the idea that can go, in my opinion.

Exactly which is why I lost respect for Sherlock in SiB. Well for that and the xmas scene.

[Hikari]

 

... I recall that SM has entrusted his wife with the very important role of series producer . . and his mother-in-law is executive producer.  So it's nepotism, but in a good cause, giving women positions of authority and a large amount of control over the creative content.  Unless 'Producer' just means that Sue Vertue gets to do all the tedious, stress-inducing scut work while her husband and Gatiss run around playing silly buggers.

 

You may not be aware that Beryl Vertue has been highly respected in the television industry since Steven Moffat was in short trousers.  It was she who arranged, circa 1970, for an American company to buy the US rights to adapt Till Death Us Do Part (which became All in the Family) and Steptoe and Son (Sanford and Son).  She formed her own production company, Hartswood in the 1980s, years before her daughter Sue (who was already in the production business herself, but did not yet work for Hartswood) met Steven Moffat in '96.  She was appointed an OBE in 2000, ten years before Sherlock debuted (and a CBE in 2016). So Steven wasn't doing any favors for Beryl -- if anything, it was the other way around.  (Needless to say, it's working out very well for all concerned.)

 

Y'know, if a man had made remarks similar to yours above, I'd assume that he had a very low opinion of women, and therefore assumed that any success they had was due to some man doing them a favor.  In this case, however, I'll chalk it up to your low opinion of Steven Moffat.  ;)

 

 

Yes, please do chalk up my remarks to my low opinion of Stephen Moffat, and not his wife, mother-in-law or women in general, seeing as I am one. 

 

I was not crediting S. Moffat in any way for the achievements of the women close to him, though I was unaware that he married into a family of women who were already powerhouses in the TV industry while he was in short trousers, so thanks for illuminating me.  What I was trying to convey and obviously failing to some degree is that I find it ironic that Moffat is castigated for a weak grasp of female characters (with some justification), when he has surrounded himself with such competent female role models in his own family who are powerful in their own rights.  One would suppose that, looking so close to home for inspiration, he could do a bit better by females in his scripts--and that his women would hold him accountable when he swings wide of the mark . . .as he did, for example, in that whole ridiculous 'Suffragette Black Mass' setpiece in TAB.  I suppose Gatiss must also share some of the responsibility for that.  TAB starts out seeming to elevate the historical suffragette struggle for the vote--a long, bitter, drawn-out battle by several generations of courageous women to secure a basic human right denied to them because of their gender.  I quite like the idea of Mary Morstan as a suffragette--how uncomfortable that would make her devoted, loving, but unabashedly traditional hubby.  But hiding behind the nobility of their social cause, these suffragettes written by Moffat are revealed to be homicidal, vengeful harpies with a decidedly satanic flavor to their secretive activities.  Like the Valkyries, but worse.  This is not how one writes an admiring, respectful, compassionate take on female characters.  Taking the Satanic suffragettes at face value, one might quite nearly assume that Moffat regards women's suffrage as a mistake of epic proportions, and in a very backhanded way, a passive-aggressive slap at women like his wife and mother-in-law--hard-driving professional women forging ahead successfully in a business world traditionally overseen by men.  I wonder if Sue and Beryl gleaned the same and if they expressed their opinions on the subject.  Because as TAB stands, it is not a flattering portrait of the motives of women.  It appears to make women who aspire to operate in a 'masculine' sphere via the vote and careers outside the home, not to mention, demanding the sexual fidelity of their husbands seem quite deranged and untrustworthy.

 

Leastways, that's what I took away from The Abominable Bride, in large part.  That under his show biz bonhomie, S. Moffat is a bit (or a lot) of a misogynist.  OR, giving him the benefit of the doubt, he could have been merely endeavoring to reflect the attitudes of the prevailing Victorian male mindset toward such 'progressive' females.  Seeing as his show was a contemporary retelling, I would have expected to see more contemporary sensibility reflected in this Victorian portion, which was, in the end, just a drug-fueled hallucination by Sherlock.  These waters were very muddled.

 

Better?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Whatever influence SV and BV have on SM's scripts is presumably as wife and mother-in-law.  Nobody seems to expect Ian Hallard to have any great influence over MG's writing, do they?

 

My best guess is that SM's first priority is to keep things unpredictable -- therefore the sort of scenes we might prefer to see aren't likely to happen on the Sherlock screen, because he thinks they'd be too predictable and ratings would almost surely go down (and he may be right about that).  Or maybe what I actually mean is, if SM & MG wrote the scenes that they think we want, they wouldn't be the scenes that we actually want anyhow, so they might as well write the scenes that they want.  Then at least two people will be happy, and chances are we will be too, at least some of the time.