Given its long time frame between each season, Sherlock seemed to grow up with me, from lonely teen to stressed adult - and found its way into my heart, burrowing so deep I can't seem to stop returning to it. I love it, I really do. In fact I have written before quite positively about Sherlock, on my blog. But deep down, I know, with every rewatch, I find myself recoiling at decisions made in almost every single episode.
My three largest issues with BBC's Sherlock are as follows:
Dismissal of women
Lack of forethought
Obtuse queerbaiting
Not to mention the complete lack of diversity amongst the cast of a London based television show and the washed out tones and darkened lighting in almost every episode leaving viewers squinting at the screen to try and catch a glimpse of Benedict Cumberbatches cheekbones or Martin Freeman's season three moustache.
I have a distinct urge to dissect every moment of every episode and give an in depth dissertation level analysis of my thoughts of what is done well and what, in my opinion, is a problem. However, given the fact I have a day job I may settle instead on a highlights reel of questionable content, why I came to said conclusion and what I would have done differently. Though, bare in mind, these are all my own opinions, and given the success of the show you may suggest that the show-runners did in fact know better. However, I do think there is a large fan base that may agree with some of what I have to say, though I do also believe the fan bases existence was cause to much of the problematic storytelling, particularly in later seasons, when both the compliance and dismissal of fan-theory created story-telling so far removed from the original tone it felt like a betrayal.
1. The problem of women
Though only 12 years ago, content created in 2010 was rarely anywhere near as progressive as it is today, and female characters, particularly in shows that garnered large fanbases, tended to be at best expendable. Women were Madonnas or Mary's. Mothers, wives or whores. You only need to look at sister show (in terms of fan base, at the time) Supernatural, to see exactly the extent of how women were treated in television. No female character ever seemed to survive more than one series of Supernatural without a love affair with a male lead or indeed, dying. Or in most cases, both. Though the female characters in Sherlock are much less often sexualised than in Supernatural, they are still the object of sexual commentary at the very least, if not only exist to prop up male characters and ultimately die for them. They are wives (Mary), mothers (Mrs Hudson) and whores (Irene).
Of course you can blame the source material. Arthur Conan Doyle couldn't ever be cited as a feminist and the late 1800's certainly weren't the place for it even if he were. Or was it? Can you blame time period for tired lack of progressive writing when Jane Austen and the Bronte sisters wrote well established, strong women?
Certainly a 19th century view of women shouldn't exist in your 2010 BBC funded fanfiction.
If nothing else, Elementary (Sherlock Holmes television series set in New York) proved that diversity wasn't a difficult thing to inject into 19th century stories, in fact it made them better. A sidekick who helps solve crimes but is often overlooked, praise falling only on the infamous hero Holmes, makes infinitely more sense if Watson is a woman. Almost every woman can relate to being overlooked in a professional setting. Especially women of colour. Why exactly would anyone be overlooking white male doctor, John Watson?
Then there's the case of writing strong female characters. Which men seem to understand as writing female characters who are strong, rather than them being strong characters who are female.
Mrs Hudson is possibly the most fleshed out female character. Though still she is cleaning up after men and referenced in relation to husbands, boyfriends and her adopted sons (Sherlock and John). She is strong in that she will point a gun at you, and isn't afraid of confrontation. But what does she do when her boys aren't around. Can she exist without men?
Next we have Molly Hooper. Though treated better as the seasons move on, Molly's character was centred around her infatuation with Sherlock. Even her boyfriends end up either being interested only in Sherlock, or look exquisitely like him.
Mary Morston, wife, mother, ex-secret agent. A great character, played by Amanda Abbington and immediately likeable and interesting. I loved her addition. Though she existed only as a wife of a male lead, she did exist in her own way and held her own even when many fans resented her existence due to her posing an obstacle between the fan-shipped 'Johnlock' (This shipping I do believe both is caused by and contributed to poor female representation). It is a shame she had to die. But of course, John needed character development, so die she did. And as the writers made her so shamefully say in the final episode of Sherlock season 4 - " With me gone, you can be great." WHAT!?
One of the worst treated but most interesting characters is Irene Adler. The woman. She was immediately sexualised, which is her job, but why is it her job? Why did these male writers choose this career for her. And then of course there's her ignored sexuality. In love with Sherlock of course, how else would she serve the show? Murdered. Although not permanently, so does it still count toward the bury your gays trope? Maybe not, but they buried her sexuality in one sentence and put her through conversion therapy before our very eyes. But I'll get onto that later. Her legacy is what really stands out. The resounding sound of orgasm echoes from Sherlock's phone, even when she doesn't appear in the episode, just another faceless sexual fantasy.
Donovan is the worst treated female character and the only recurring female character who is also a person of colour.
She is immediately introduced to be unlikable alongside Anderson, as dismissive of Sherlock and his intelligence while also being called out for sexual behaviour and belittled because of it. She is ultimately villainized for being a good police officer who considered the use of outside detective work as potentially dangerous. She is actually doing her job. Although, if it weren't for her overt and immediate sexualisation she might have been a good antagonist alongside Anderson. However, it is clear with these small remarks what the writers think of women. Especially women with opinions.
In the final series, there is, finally, a female character that doesn't fit the mother, wife or whore trope. Instead she is a psychopathic sister. It felt too that the writers seem to pat themselves on the back for their diverse thinking. "Did it ever occur to you that Sherlock's secret brother, was in fact his secret sister." It was treated like a feminist win. While I love unhinged female characters it can hardly be considered a win when women are only introduced to be loved, killed or locked up by men.
In reality there is no reason John shouldn't be able to be female, or Lestrade, or Mycroft or Sherlock without any of the story feeling out of place. Women were spliced in for plots sake, to feel like a feminist addition only to prove, fatally, that men were the focus.
2. The problem of continuity
How does a show, that claims to be so clever, have so many ill thought out story lines? Every season they end on a cliffhanger, then every new season they all but dismiss any questions or suspense left by said cliffhanger and tiptoe around it like a wet floor sign.
Season one's finale had suspense, drama, Moriarty being so changeable and deciding that actually he was going to kill Sherlock and John. In a dark swimming pool with bombs and guns and snipers at his disposal it should be fairly easy. Viewers cling to the edge of their seat and await season 2, wondering what oh so clever thing Sherlock will have to do to get them out of this one. But oh, oh no, Season 2 starts and...a phone rings...and the suspense is over again just like that. Hmm. Seems they didn't prepare a conclusion ahead of time. I guess defeating Moriarty can wait. And a good thing too, because it means more time with Andrew Scott (Incredible actor, Hot Priest) and leads the season 2 finale, The Riechenbach Fall. Incredible storytelling, creating a question in the mind of all of Sherlocks friends and fans, is he really a genius? It would've been nice if we as the viewer were less in the know, if we could experience the questioning alongside them. But that aside, it is possibly a greater piece of television writing. He has no choice, he has to jump. And he jumped, and he survived. But how?
Season three opens with an explanation...a bad one, but its okay its just fan theories, theories definitely stolen from Tumblr but that's by the by. The entire episode plays out, nearing the end we see Sherlock explain how he did it. Or did he? We conclude, as does Anderson that maybe that wasn't the truth, so what did happen? Maybe it is best we don't know. Because no explanation will satiate us, because that would've involved planning. If they could take us back to that episode and point out all the hints we missed that all add up, it would work. But they can't, because they didn't plan.
And then season 3 ends with a banger, Mary isn't who she said she is, and she shot Sherlock.
Mary Morston's storyline was one which could've held so much intrigue and backstory. Season 3 episode 3 centred on her initials A.G.R.A with Sherlock suggesting Mary wasn't English. By Season 4 episode 1, A.G.R.A isn't initials, and she's as English as rain. Was that always intentional, or was it a scramble to fit in a story line to what had already been laid down? Were we to accept that Sherlock, who can tell where you will be standing in two weeks time, and what you had for breakfast 3 years ago, was wrong about something as simple as an accent? And if so what was the point of him saying it?
Finally the final episode. The reveal of Eurus. The secret sister who Sherlock forgot completely after some trauma involving a "dog" and whom the Holmes parents believe to be dead. So, in all the time since her death, did parents nor family or friends mention Sherlock's dead sister to him? His parents seemed extremely upset about her loss, and angry to find out she was alive all along. If they were so deeply hurt by her loss, why not in the Christmas episode did his parents not mention her, why were there no photos of her on the wall. Why did Sherlock not know she existed?
Of course some things do feel like as a viewer we should just agree to accept the slight differences. Many shows aren't sure they are going to be renewed so planning ahead may not always be necessary. But surely there are ways to, at least, use previous information to propel a story, rather than ignoring it.
3. The problem of queerbaiting
Many people argue that Sherlock is a stark example of obtuse queerbaiting, while the creators remain stubborn that it is just a fault of the viewer for reading too far into things and projecting. There are layers and levels of this and in most cases I do believe characters belong to the viewer or reader and any speculation or life characters are given beyond canon is never wrong. Most notably, BBC Sherlock is itself fanfiction of Conan Doyle original stories.
Lack of female counterparts, particularly female characters with enough depth and character for viewers to latch onto could be argued to be the cause of fans often gravitating toward the only relationship that seemed to have any screentime - let alone chemistry. Time after time creators give only men screen time then become infuriated with fans for shipping two male characters. This has happened in fandoms such as Supernatural and Marvel. Although there should be no issue in two male characters being shipped, the creators should take a moment of reflection and recognise additions of strong female characters may give fans options for more straight ships. However, it is also true that often fans, once they have established a ship between two male characters, become unreasonably hostile toward the introduction of any potential female love interest, which could lead show-runners away from adding female characters at all.
Though I am not on the side of Johnlock shippers, who believe that the couple are endgame and that the creators aren't honouring the love story they seemed to hint at throughout, I do think they have a point.
To me it does seem that John is entirely straight, in love with Sherlock purely platonically. His insistence on his sexuality is just one hint at this. His heteronormative conclusions another. And his actual clear pursuit of exclusively women, a final indicator. It is however clear that the writers included hints and winks to the fandom of a potential romance in order to increase fandom interaction, and then ultimately threw it back in their face.
Though infuriating, I do think shipping characters and expecting writers to come to the same conclusion you have is a flawed approach to media consumption- even in straight romance stories often the couple you want together fails, and I don't think it is inherently queerbaiting for a couple you want together to end up just friends. However, the way the creators and writers approached sexuality in general is another story.
Season One. Episode one. A Study in Pink. The first introduction to the characters and portrayal of what we are to understand of them going forward. Sherlock in my opinion is almost explicitly shown to be queer. Almost all of the people who know him personally, aside from Molly, let us know that they are of the opinion he is gay. Mrs Hudson assuming John is his boyfriend and the restaurant owner assuming John is his date.
Sherlock even tells John women are "not his area", something he continues to say throughout the show, (Series 3 episode 3 he suggests women are John's area of expertise rather than his own.) It doesn't take long for John to assume Sherlock isn't straight, which continues again into season 2 ("Who knows about Sherlock Holmes, but I am not gay" "Has Sherlock ever had a boyfriend, girlfriend…")
However these hints seem to be ignored in several episodes. In a Scandal in Belgravia he is both thought to be gay ("He doesn't know where to look") and to be interested in women ("He does know where to look").
Now this could all be the point, Sherlock is an enigma who's sexuality seems unknown. This would be a fine conclusion for any viewer. Except that isn't what happens.
Season 4 episode 2 - "Even I text." Sherlock says. "The woman, I mean" interpreted within the context of the conversation to mean flirts. Next comes John's insistence he be with the woman. "She likes you and she's alive." As if all the unknownness of Sherlock's sexuality is completely forgotten and the conclusion is that he is, in fact, straight. (Not to mention Irene Adlers own forgotten sexuality - which I will get into) Infuriating for a viewer who meerly picked up the subtext that was laid before them only for it to be pulled from them, and to be told they are in fact wrong, that subtext isn't canon its speculation and the only things to be accepted as canon are things explicitly told to us by the characters themselves. How very condescending.
Subtext is not just what a viewer or reader decipher through their own projections, it is a real storytelling technique that when used creates story within canon.
For example, one of Benedict Cumberbatch's more recent works "The Power of the Dog" his character Phil is clearly homosexual, and had a sexual relationship with belated friend Bronco Henry. This is never said aloud, but rather shown through subtext, understanding the viewer is clever enough to pick it up. Which we all did.
Though some people may say it is a cop out in order to avoid offending more conservative viewers I believe it is a perfectly acceptable storytelling technique, telling us part of a story that Phil had to keep secret from his friends and family, we only see it as Peter sees it and understand it, which would never be explicitly told aloud.
This is simply an example of when subtext is used to legitimately portray character feelings and relationships. Our understanding of subtext as the viewer is part of our understanding of the story as a whole. So when subtext is so vehemently thrown at us, only to be taken away due to its lack of explicit confirmation, seems unfair and more importantly bad storytelling.
As is seen in section 2, things said in one season don't seem to always stretch to the next, and even things said in one episode don't stretch to the end.
The subtext for Sherlocks queerness was interwoven from the start, far beyond the fan service episodes in later seasons, so although these acts of fan service did often cause storyline and character development to suffer, it was never the ultimate cause of the queer reading of Sherlock Holmes, in fact that even stemmed from the books - but this is 2010 onward, we are more progressive now, we have a gay creator and a way to create a progressive modern retelling. And in ways they were progressive, from female characters who were once male to gay characters who were once straight.
Yes, Irene Adler, self proclaimed and explicitly mentioned and shown to be a lesbian. ("I am [gay]")
Though sexuality can be fluid it seems cruel to give a sense of progression with a lesbian character, only to have her role centred around her desire to be with a man. It's as if they wrote the words "I am [gay]" to come out of her mouth, patted themselves on the back for a job well done then got back to the regularly scheduled heteronormativity.
It could be argued that Irene's interest in Sherlock and vice versa are to be interpreted as each's own 'only exception.' He is the only man she has ever loved, she the only person (If we are to believe Mycroft and Moriarty assertion that Sherlock is a virgin), or woman (if we are believe the subtext given to us from episode one) he has ever loved.
This could be nice, however, in reality, is there any need, storytelling or progressive wise, to tell another story of boy meets girl? Is it a twist that both of them are gay but in love with each other, or is it the age old heteronormative ideals kicking in?
Though season four gave a distinct impression of closure there are still rumours every now and then of a season five being made. Admittedly, I am not sure its a good idea to elongate this story more than needs be, in my opinion season 2's end could've been closure enough. Though it left unanswered questions and of course with fans demanding answers, the third season was made, but it didn't answer any of the questions, not really. So it didn't seem to add much except fan service. Though casual enjoyment of a show is sometimes point enough to make it, BBC's Sherlock gives off an aura of pretentious storytelling that would suggest the design was to be a cathartic and well written story, though this was seldom delivered.
So it isn't completely impossible, in between marvel contracts and Oscar buzz, that the main cast may be able to come back together to create more episodes, and if that is to be the case, there could be, in the potential season five, a chance for queerbaiting to be a thing of the past, and for Sherlock to be explicitly...something. Now I don't think it truly needs to be resolved in a boyfriend or coming out, in fact Sherlock being a loner forever worked for me and was true to canon, but if they could just let Irene be gay, that would be great. It seems unlikely that after 4 seasons of queerbaiting and then immediately withdrawing it the writers would change their mind but who knows, it took 12 season for Mac to come out in Its Always Sunny in Philadelphia.
But through all this purposeful laid out commentary and spliced in subtext the creators remain adamant that sexual orientation was never anything they intended to portray within Mr Holmes. "We walk into that one all the time,” Moffat told EW. “It’s a funny thing when a character for over 100 years has been saying, ‘I don’t do that at all.’ He’s been saying it over 100 years! He’s not interested in [sex]. He’s willfully staying away from that to keep his brain pure—a Victorian belief, that. But everyone wants to believe he’s gay. He’s not gay. He’s not straight. And Doctor Watson is very clear that he prefers women. People want to fantasize about it. It’s fine. But it’s not in the show.”
Now this may be the case, and I have no issue with Sherlock being presented as unsexual, nor if he was portrayed as straight. In Elementary Sherlock is portrayed as strictly straight and I never felt the urge to argue. However, it seems the creators are arguing against something they purposefully included. Circling back to the first episode, if they had intended on proving Sherlock to not be interested in either male or female sexual partners, why did they write that Sherlock replied "Not my area" about women, but simply agreed that he "Knows its fine" when asked if he had a boyfriend. Why would they include mentions of him being speculated as interested in men? If this was a real person you had a conversation with you might leave feeling slightly unsure of Sherlock's sexuality, sure John did. But in terms of storytelling, this conversation was left purposefully open ended. Which is fine, if they left it purposefully open ended to the end. But instead they turned their back on these decisions, chose to make him sexually attracted to The Woman and then mock viewers for interpreting anything differently.
Ultimately I think Sherlock is a great show and between editing choices and fan interaction it truly is, of it's time. My main struggles come from the writers decisions to leave a trail of breadcrumbs and then ignore them all entirely in the name of either 'plot twist' or just heteronormativity. In the case of this show, it is still one I will always go back to, but in my mind I will never stop making my own rewrites.
Comments