Sherlock - BBC [4]

Pettytyrant101 wrote:, but I am not sure if a certain demographic that shriek sexism at Moffat would let him away with having John's wife become a  stay at home take care of the house type.
Although I dont see a problem with it myself, I dont see why a women who chooses to stay at home should be any less a complex interesting individual than one who doesn't. But having made her an ex assassin that might be a bit tricky anyway now.

firstly. 'shriek sexism'? ..shriek??... really? ...that demographic you are talking about are women, and they dont shriek as you gallantly put it. they make objections to blatant sexist tropes on tv. NO shrieking involved.
My problem is having John married at all why introduce a redundant character to the show who's only interesting feature is being another cliche kick ass babe.

oh no, Ive watched some youtube vids on the matter which definitely involved shrieking, metaphorical and actual. And not just from the lasses either.

ok.. head for cover.. and get the popcorn

Mrs Figg wrote:why introduce a redundant character to the show who's only interesting feature is being another cliche kick ass babe.

You could always ask Peter Jackson.   

Something something feminine energy. Oh, wait, no, it was all about a love triangle all along.

yeah, because sherlock is also interested in Mary

I thought they gave Mary quite a bit of character as well as co-opting her into the existing story as the would be killer.
Ok its a big change from the original, where Holmes and Watson cover up a murder rather than Holmes commit it, but I thought they gave her some good scenes with John. Particularly the xmas period scenes and the scene where John makes her take the chair as a client and tell them her story.
But I thought she had more depth and personality than a Tauriel type. The writing did succeed in making me care what John thought of her and how he would react and treat her once he knew the truth and how she would respond to that.

But I dont offhand remember many times Watson wife features in stories save to mention she is there more or less.
One of the few I can recall they already used- when her friends husband has been missing in the opium den and they send Watson and he finds Holmes there.

...yeah and she's a trained assasin, thats just saying an ordinary housewife just aint interesting enough, its just as dumb as Tauriel and the Whole Christmas scene thing was cloying.

Damned if he does damned if he doesn't for Moffat.

If he has her portrayed as in the books- just Watsons wife, I dont even think there any many scenes, if any, of just Watson and any of his wives- he would be accused of sexism.

Granted assassin might not have been my choice but I can see how it was driven by the narrative, not a choice based on her sexuality or some preconceived pattern to do women down or portray them falsely.
The pattern when they have been adapting actual Doyle stories has been to use existing elements or characters in new and surprising ways.

In the case of Mary she took the part of the women who actually shot and killed the blackmailer in the scene they have the reveal its Mary and she shoots Sherlock.
They always tend to introduce their own elements through the existing ones, its one of the ways they manage to maintain a sense of continuity with the original story without if feeling jarring.

In the blackmailer story the list of available characters for Mary to replace is short, and the female list even shorter. That they choose the main female involved with the original story to replace with Mary therefore does not seem a surprise to me, nor does it seem in any way shape or form provoked by some sexist slant.

The other reason I think she is not like a Tauriel is that her assassin side is the obstacle, not something being celebrated as a mark of her strength as a woman. Its what stands in the way of her future with life and love and would condemn her to more of the past she no longer wants.
Its not used in the manner of look how cool that women is she can kick ass.

If he has her portrayed as in the books- just Watsons wife, I dont even think there any many scenes, if any, of just Watson and any of his wives- he would be accused of sexism. Petty

No he wouldnt be accused of sexism, thats absurd. You are implying that housewives portayed just as housewives are not worthy of being in the story, that they are by definition lesser characters by their role in life, and therefore have to have their story lines beefed up by the Writers to be acceptable. If John is married why cant she be a housewife and not Milla Jovovich?

No I am implying overzealous internet heads would jump all over Moffat if he included a female character whose only job was to stand in the background and occasionally kiss or hug John, cook his meals and darn his socks and who was given no dialogue of any note at all, ever.
They jump ll over Moffat if he makes female characters strong and independent, they jump all over him if they are weak and dependent on someone.
Look at the crap he had to take over Amy's marriage and that she is in the end motivated by love for her husband and a desire to live a normal family life with him- people claiming she is only defined by her husband and other rot, imagine he had married her off and she had no other traits but being married- Moffat would have got condemned from certain quarters.
Me saying Moffat would get stick is not sadly absurd at all, it already happens for less solid reasons.

I made my own view on the matter of a housewife versus an action figure perfectly clear above, but I will re quote myself for clarity-

'I dont see a problem with it myself, I dont see why a women who chooses to stay at home should be any less a complex interesting individual than one who doesn't.'

They jump ll over Moffat if he makes female characters strong and independent

thats the problem in a nutshell. he doesnt make them strong and independant, he makes them look strong when  in fact they totally depend on the Doctor/Sherlock for their self Worth.

they jump all over him if they are weak and dependent on someone

thats because they are weak and dependent on men, the hero of the story, their self Worth wrapped up in the Doctor/Sherlock.

Moffat gets stick from thousands of people is because thousands of people can see what you obviously cannot bear to acknowledge, that Moffat is incapable of writing healthy non sexually available females.

Yet he gets praise from the millions who are not the thousands you speak of- but its not a numbers game its about analysing the writing, and it alone.

How can you say Amy is dependent on the Doctor when her not depending on the Doctor and accepting her own self worth, her own life on her own terms by taking responsibility for herself  is the backbone of her arc?- and arc completed when she breaks from the Doctor forever by a conscious choice.

Look at poor Rose- left to cry for her man abandoned with no choice and through no action of her own in a parallel dimension.
And then to make her happy they just fobbed her off with her own Doctor so she can always have a man, and called it a happy ending.

Amy on the other hand confronted her relationship to the Doctor- episodes like God Complex are all about it, and she made her own decisions and acted definitively on them.

I dont think Moffat is sexist in his writing because I have never seen any evidence that he is. He writes characters, males and females in a certain type of way, an d you can like or dislike that, but I dont see them as sexist.

nope

Thats not a response Mrs Figg- you cant deny that Amy's arc is about her coming to terms with who she is and accepting herself and choosing the sort of life she wants to have and to lead, and who she wants to spend that life with.

Everything in Amy's arc is ultimately decided by Amy herself. Her story on screen is one of going from childhood, both literal and mentally, to adulthood, acceptance and understanding and the putting away of childish things. Like the Doctor and how she sees him.

"I'm not a hero. I really am just a mad man in a box. And it's time we saw each other for who we really are, Amelia Wiliams."

Pettytyrant101 wrote:

How can you say Amy is dependent on the Doctor when her not depending on the Doctor and accepting her own self worth, her own life on her own terms by taking responsibility for herself  is the backbone of her arc?

Two points on that.

First, it seems clear that you can say "Amy is dependent on the Doctor" precisely because that's a key assumption of the character arc you're referring to -- breaking away from a dependent relationship.

Second, that arc felt quite forced at times, getting in the way of both the individual plots and characters. Any time it feels like it's preaching, it's not very good writing.

Carry on!

Thats not a response Mrs Figg- you cant deny that Amy's arc is about her coming to terms with who she is and accepting herself and choosing the sort of life she wants to have and to lead, and who she wants to spend that life with. Petty

yes I can deny that.   

That sounds more like a criticism of the writing of the arc David.

Some of it I think it is inevitable when making a show like Doctor Who, which often undergoes time, budget constraints, as well as casting issues and getting the writers they want ect.
For 50 years it always seems to be a show fighting against its BBC restraints!

But to answer your specific points- yes Amy is utterly dependent on the Doctor, or her idea of him at least, because she was never able to grow up from the childhood meeting with him.
She grew up in  a world which said such things dont exists, they are a faery story- but she knew they did- so she clung onto that but had to hide it or she ended back with the psychiatrists. Its one of the reasons when we first meet her why she is so abrasive and angry, its a protective shell.

But saying the arc covers her emergence from that shell is not the same as saying her dependence on the Doctor is because Moffat hates woman and is a misogynist who has to have his female lead dependent on the Doctor.

Amy's dependency is psychological. Roses was pure adoration and love. Which on the balance of portraying women seems shallower and more misogynistic to me.
The Doctor is so great of course she would fall in love with him and when she is partied forever from him, of course she has to be gifted, by a man, a clone version to go off into the sunset with otherwise she could never be happy without her man.

If you are going to write a story about someone who comes to see a person she has idolised for who they are, and in doing so comes to see who she herself truly is, then you have to start them off at the opposite end of the extreme or there is no journey.
Everything about Amy is portrayed this way- its hard by the end of her run to imagine her without Rory, yet when we first meet Rory she is unwilling to even fully acknowledge he is her boyfriend, "sort of, boyfriend."
And the Doctor is the central figure  so of course at the start she is utterly dependent on him. She has to be or there is no story to tell.

Your second point I covered at the start- but again I dont see how thinking the writing is not good enough at times has any bearing on saying Moffat created a sexist character in Amy.


yes I can deny that.- Mrs Figg

 

You know I'm not taking sides here Petty. It's just seems when we focus in, there's not much to disagree on.

We agree that at the beginning, and through the whole series to the end, Amy's dependency is central to her character arc.

I think we agree that dependency is a sensitive issue that demands high quality writing not to sound preachy.

We agree that the writing on Who, for whatever reason, has ups and downs.

We know that generally people who are sensitive to an issue don't appreciate being preached at.

From there it's simple to add it up, isn't it?

Some people are not going to appreciate the writing related to Amy's dependency.

Why is this a subject for debate?  

Shifting this to the Who thread Dave- reply will be there!

ah, not Amy Pond again  leave her out of the sherlock thread!!

Eldorion wrote:

Pettytyrant101 wrote:The UK government organised a screening of BBC TV drama Sherlock in North Korea in the hope of "encouraging change" in the country, it has been revealed.- BBC

   

From that same article:

Sherlock has been a big hit around the world. In China, it is among the most popular TV imports and Cumberbatch has been nicknamed Curly Fu.

We need to start using this nickname stat.

so when series 3 aired and they blew up parliment... noone reacted to the fact that he (Moran) was working with the north koreans?


although, north korean people like england. i read somewhere a journalist had asked what kind of english his north korean guide had learned and she answered the queen's english because "that's the correct english" or something like that  so they don't actually have anything against western culture, just the US-culture.

I don't think that's a real picture

Really?!