Warning: spoilers for Sherlock series 3.
These thoughts were triggered by a wonderful article in the New Statesman by Laurie Penny on Sherlock and fanfiction, which you can read here. http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2014/01/sherlock-and-adventure-overzealous-fanbase (Another fascinating topic, but I’ll leave that for another day.)
I love Sherlock. I think it’s a brilliant exploration of two men’s adventures and platonic love for each other. However, the conclusion of the third series on Sunday made me consider the role of women in the programme; understated and undermined, I think.
“You do count”
Molly Hooper played by Louise Brealey
Take this, for example: “The pining, put-upon character of Molly Hooper in Sherlock, one of the few characters with no easy equivalent in the original stories, is painful to watch as she mopes around after Holmes like a lovesick puppy.”
Now I don’t understand why, in the 21st century, Moffatt and Gatiss felt the need to make a character like Molly Hooper so subservient to Sherlock’s wiles. In the second series, certainly, her role seemed to be a key to St Bart’s pathology lab and body parts, and on occasion a reminder of what a bastard the detective really is.
There are two scenes involving this character which are inscribed into fan legend: that excruciating scene where Sherlock ‘deduces’ her present to him, and – shock horror – apologises and kisses her cheek. Which apparently makes him more human. Well, even if it does, normality seems to restore itself pretty quickly. Does Molly Hooper need to be so masochistic?
The second ‘legendary’ scene is, of course, the “you do count” scene in the morgue. Lovely and heartfelt, perhaps. But what does it say about Sherlock that he only goes to her as a last resort, and Molly that she knows and accept this? (This may be a bit oversimplified, but the way Sherlock is portrayed throughout the programme suggests that the character never does anything without an ulterior motive…)
In the third series, I have different complaints. First off, she is never adequately thanked for her role in saving Sherlock’s life in the Fall. I know, I know, Sherlock invites her to solve crimes with him which probably is an intimate thing for him to suggest, but his being so nice to her only after she gets engaged, after he is essentially in debt to her, feels a little manipulative. Also, when she does become the sparky, fierce Molly I’ve wanted to see since the show started, Sherlock’s reaction is to commiserate with the end of her engagement. “I’m glad there was no ring”, he says after she has (finally) slapped him. It’s telling that she’s more upset that he’s messed up his own health than that he’s betrayed her.
The engagement itself seems fairly arbitrary. What did it contribute except another example of poor little Molly Hooper’s obsession with Sherlock and proclivity to date sociopaths/ serial killers.
It’s easy to forget, when she’s stuttering and pandering to Sherlock’s whims, that this is an intelligent character. That’s what I find annoying about how she’s presented. I was pleased about the mind-palace sequence in series 3, where fierce Molly talks Sherlock through how to react to being shot. Hopefully this points towards a time where Molly isn’t just a pair of hands (Sherlock evens calls her “John”, sometimes) and fluttering lashes.
“Let’s have dinner”
Irene Adler played by Lara Pulver
In the original Conan Doyle stories, Irene Adler is the only woman to catch Holmes’ interest, the only one to “beat” him. This explains the epithet “The Woman”.
Naturally, the creators of BBC Sherlock decided to spice this up a bit – understatement – and transform the character into a dominatrix who really, really wants to have her wicked way with Sherlock Holmes. She’s more memorable in this interpretation for calling Jim Moriarty off and for spending an entire scene naked than for her actual crimes. In other words, she is a very sexy femme fatale who makes us question Sherlock’s sexuality. “The Woman” feels a bit less of a compliment in this case.
And of course, she doesn’t actually beat him, because she’s a silly human being too entrenched in sentiment, and a human being silly enough to get herself beheaded. Well, I say beheaded…
Perhaps Sherlock doesn’t show her the same level of contempt he shows Molly, Sally Donovan or Stapleton, the other intelligent women he’s interacted with, but he doesn’t respect her either. Maybe that’s what happens when you use your measurements as your security code. Or if you’re silly enough to ask Sherlock Holmes to have dinner.
Irene Adler is a strong character, but her strength derives from her sexuality. Sherlock’s victory is in overcoming this control. Laurie Penny suggests that women in Sherlock are “dispensable love objects, figures of derision, or both”. I think that the tragedy with Irene Adler is that we’re only given one episode to decipher her.
“Not your housekeeper”
Mrs Hudson, played by Una Stubbs
Mrs Hudson, we learn in the third series, helped her husband to run a drug cartel. “I only did the typing”, she clucks when Sherlock points this out. How disappointing of you.
Despite her motto above, Mrs H (“Hudders”) is clearly more than a landlady to both Sherlock and John and yet we don’t really know that much about her. Most of what we do know about her background is also what we know of her husband. I want to know her maiden name, for a start.
What’s sad about her is that she’s like a mother to the men, and yet she can’t hold this claim over them. John can go two years without contacting her with very little criticism. When Sherlock dies, her role is to comfort John – no one asks her how she feels.
“Your mother has a lot to answer to,” she tells Sherlock. So have Moffatt and Gatiss, I think. The “not your housekeeper” comments are funny, yes, but they’re also overplayed so much that it isn’t just Sherlock being rude to her, but almost all the other characters. And Una Stubbs is too good an actress to be wasted on scenes like the one where her only line is “The neighbours!” (Though delivery of that line is perfection.)
“You repel me”
Amanda Abbington plays Mary Morstan
There are other female characters I haven’t discussed. Mary Morstan/ Watson is fascinating in that she’s intelligent, brave and dangerous as well as funny and kind. Superwoman, maybe? I’m glad her role is more than ‘John’s wife’. Singlehandedly, she saves series 3 from negatively-portrayed women. Long may it continue!
The other interesting character in series 3 is Janine, Sherlock’s “fiancée”. I like to think she sees straight through him from the first; it’s hinted, after all, that they never did have sex. What irritates me is that she is ultimately presented as a money-grabbing gossip rather than the clever, funny woman of previous scenes. She almost becomes a more interesting version of series 2’s Kitty Riley, which is a shame because, at the end of the day, Sherlock was so much more manipulative.
But here’s a difference: Janine gets revenge, unlike Molly Hooper’s futile attempt to slap him into submission. She gets out before Sherlock (or Moffatt and Gatiss) can push her out, assuming she won’t be in the fourth series. In a way, she wins.
So hopefully, next series will show women on the up in Sherlock, both in the audience’s estimation and in their strength of character. I’d like to see more of Sally Donovan who, despite being ridiculed by Sherlock, seems to be quietly competent. Attention is never drawn to this fact, of course, just as the other women in the programme are never properly thanked for their actions.
Babbling Gossip 