I’ll admit it: The only thing that Jane Austen and Sherlock have in common, aside from their Britishness, is PBS and the BBC, who co-produce the many excellent film series and costume dramas that Jane Austen fans enjoy. That is my main excuse for reviewing a mystery set in the modern age. After watching Season One of Sherlock, I eagerly looked forward to Season 2. I was not disappointed with the first episode, A Scandal in Belgravia. A number of viewers in the U.K., however, were outraged.
Lara Pulver as Irene Adler, dominatrix
Parents who watched the Belgravia episode with their young children wrote to the BBC complaining about the plot – which revolved around a dominatrix – and the nudity. While no female parts were anatomically shown, a great deal of bare flesh was displayed for about 2-3 minutes. I seriously doubt that young children are able to understand the double entendres spoken by Sherlock and Irene Adler (Lara Pulver), the woman whose craftiness and intelligence equals his. Much like a championship tennis game or chess match, it is great fun to watch these two characters connive, spar, tease and flirt in a game of mental and verbal one upmanship. And so, I surmise, that the irate parents were concerned about nudity, not subtext. Frankly, I’d be more angry about the explicit violence their children are exposed to in film and on television and try to put a halt to that, but what do I know?
Irene talks nonchalantly as the two men try not to react.
The plot in the first Season 2 episode is really is not so much about solving the mystery as about Sherlock finding himself in thrall of Ms. Adler’s devious mind. A dominatrix who possesses incriminating photos of her sexual involvement with a British royal, she is able to do mental battle with Sherlock and hold her own. Upon first meeting her, Sherlock cannot make a “read” on her, for she reveals no clues about herself. How could she? She’s naked. And so he finds her irresistibly intriguing.
Sherlock and Dr. Watson in Buckingham Palace. Unwilling to come, he refused to dress, a fact that barely surprised his roommie.
Some critics yawned at the plot, but I think they missed the point. This episode is all about Irene Adler tempting Sherlock out of his celibacy and distracting him with sexual thoughts. The episode was purportedly written to deflect any thoughts about Sherlock and Dr. Watson engaging in a homosexual relationship. I never had such a thought, but apparently many did.
Tit for tat. Cumberbatch gets to do a partial nude scene.
Once again Benedict Cumberbatch has done an outstanding job in portraying a man who, aside from his brilliant mind, is completely off his rocker. To me he is the definitive Sherlock. No other actor, past or present (even Robert Downey Jr) can match him in my eyes. By now, Dr. Watson (Martin Freeman), has grown accustomed to his strange roommie, and can anticipate how Sherlock will react at any given moment. The two odd friends have solidified into a smooth-working team.
Sherlock refuses to visit the crime scene, but is willing to study the site via WiFi. In this scene he is lecturing the inspector for suspecting the suspect.
Guest star, Lara Pulver, is one brave actress. Not only did she perform an important scene entirely in the nude, she was convincing as the woman who could outsmart Sherlock. I was highly captivated by their interplay.
Sherlock and Irene Adler discuss the crime in her sitting room. The camera zooms in on the actual scene as the two are solving the mystery. It’s these original touches that make this series so visually exciting.
If , after reading my take on the first episode, you still think the topic of A Scandal in Belgravia is too mature for your children, I suggest that you rent a movie for your offspring, trundle them off to a different room, then sit back and enjoy one of the more weirdly satisfying and witty mystery series on TV.
Sherlock will air tonight and on May 13th and May 20th for 1 1/2 hours at 9 PM EST (or check your local listing.) PBS has also arranged a twitter party during these events. Hash tag #SherlockPBS.
The episodes will stream online at PBSs website one day after the initial air date. Click here.
Read my reviews of Sherlock Season One here.
Jane Austen's World 
I am mesmerized by Cumberbatch’s acting as Sherlock. I’ve been waiting for this season to come out. I usually do e-mail or facebook while watching tv but I can’t do that with Sherlock because I have to watch and interpret everything at all times in order to keep up with the story. I think the show is brilliant and the two main actors are terrific. It is a totally different genre for this gal who loves the period pieces that PBS and the BBC do so well together but I’m somewhat addicted to this series. Thanks for covering it! I should also admit that I really got into Zen, too.
I must say that I always considered Sherlock Holmes’ vice to be one of onanism rather than homosexuality. He loves himself too much to want to share his pleasure with someone else.
After not liking any of the first series, which relied entirely on camera gimmicks to camouflage the fact that none of the plots made sense, I was prepared not to watch the new episodes, but now you have obliged me to watch in order to see this ‘duel’ for myself. The Holmes genre has always been granted too high a reputation, in TV and film particularly, and transporting the improbabilities to modern Britain hasn’t improved the mix so far. The only way crime is solved today is via the multitude of spy cameras in every street and foyer…so our hero’s sublime intellect really has little opportunity to exert itself.
“He loves himself too much to want to share his pleasure with someone else.”
True, but I also think that he conserves all his energy for his brilliance. In that way I liken him more to Narcissus, mesmerized by his self-reflection of intellect.
I will be curious to read your thoughts about the episode. My problem with it was its Americanized ending, which I did not mention in the review. I wish writers would leave the mystery of an inconclusive ending alone – but in this instance they went one step further.
I think in terms of sleuthing, the Holmes character has intrigued me because of his outsized ego and for his keen observations. Being clued to the tiniest details – even with spy cameras, those who are gifted with this insight will see more in a blurry black and white pixilated image than I ever will.
Thanks for stopping by! As always, I enjoy your visits.
Vic, I definitely agree with you on Narcissus, which was what came to my mind. To my shame, or not, I had to look up onanism to know what it meant and I would have never thought of that with Sherlock Holmes. Narcissistic, yes, definitely.
Kester2 “After not liking any of the first series, which relied entirely on camera gimmicks to camouflage the fact that none of the plots made sense,”
Well that’s a load of rubbish to start with.
They are meant to be problems to solve. Maybe you just couldn’t solve them.
As for onanism, I never took Sherlock Holmes to be a wanker!!
I always thought he was rather cool.
I hope you enjoy the duel!! You may well be “stretched,” yourself!!!
“The Holmes genre has always been granted too high a reputation, in TV and film particularly, and transporting the improbabilities to modern Britain hasn’t improved the mix so far.”
Do you know something, I actually agree with you, it hasn’t improved the mix. It has interpreted it in a very clever modern way which I thought was not possible, but they have done it.
As for sublime intellects,have I ever come across one of those me thinks? Human interpretation will always be necessary no matter how much technology develops or were you hoping to retire your own brain? I wonder what your experience is with technology is? I hope it doesn’t nullify you as a human.
I always thought of Sherlock as completely asexual. Any urges that he had outside of his mind I figured he rejected and repressed, and perhaps used his drugs as a vehicle for distracting himself from such “human” feelings.
I loved the first season with Messrs Cumberbatch and Freeman, and felt that they were truer to any adaptation since that of Brett/Burke; perhaps even more true. I commend the BBC for its 21st century revision of the sleuth and his sidekick, and am looking forward to this season. How brilliant to portray Ms Adler as a dominatrix!
No, Chris and Katherine, I dodn’t think the ending was silly at all. Ok, we had to suspend belief that Sherlock could possibly infiltrate the terrorist group in Karachi and actually save Irene from being beheaded by becoming her executioner. Greater love hath….etc etc How could it work? Of course it was impossible. But Chris, you do find gross inconsistencies in great literature. I defy anybody to read Jayne Eyre and not think,”How could that happen?” in various scenes. You can find inconsistencies and too obvious coincidences in all great fiction. The plots the thing and it MUST move on to its conclusion!!!! HA! HA!
Some of the things I got from this episode were the many rich and varied layered references.
The hijacked plane explored the anguish and problem a government has to consider when this happens. The USA has already had to contend with that dilemma of course. It is a dilemma of the modern age. The British government are putting contingencies in place right now for the Olympics this Summer. A Euro fighter roars overhead in Wimbledon as I write this for goodness sake. That’s unheard of, literally. The Buckingham Palace involvement is very clever. It not only has Victorian references, one suspect for Jack the Ripper was a member of the royal family living in Buckingham Palace, but the fact there are photographs on Irene’s cell phone has echoes of Lady Diana Spencer , the paparazzi and the perceived scandals she was involved in. There are present members of the Royals stupid enough to get into embarrassing situations unfortunately and have done so. It’s a nod to some of the British publics cynicism for the Royal family.
Irene Adler sending phone messages from a country she has spirited herself away to. Isn’t that Hannibal Lecter sending messages to Clarice Starling?
Am I getting too far fetched now?
Come on you lot. Just wait for The Reichenbach Fall. Suspend belief now. You can do it, I know. Then tell me how it works.
I found this episode unsatisfying for entirely different reasons: in the original stories, Irene Adler is “The woman” because she is the only person ever to win against Sherlock Holmes. The BBC update portrayed her, in the end, as nothing more than another damsel in distress. A retrograde step–and one that was entirely unnecessary. Conan Doyle knew his hero would survive being bested by a woman, and even come out as a more rounded character because of it–how sad that the modern writers had no such confidence.
I have not read the original story, and now am curious. I agree with you on this point: the ending seems fixed. In other words, the episode had ended with a bit of a mystery, and then they “Americanized” it with an answer. I wish they had left the final minutes out.
The original episode is entitled: ‘A Scandal in Bohemia’, the 1st story (first shown on BBC Granada TV in April 1984) from the 1st series: ‘The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes’, starring Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes. Of the many actors who portrayed Sherlock Holmes, I think Jeremy Brett (b.1933, d.1995) fitted the role like a glove. He even looked like the one in Sidney Paget’s illustrations when it was first published in The Strand magazine in 1891.
“PBS and the BBC, who co-produce the many excellent film series.”
Sorry Vic, this is not right. We must get this right. PBS do not make these series.
The BBC make these and sell them to PBS.
Have a look at this link.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/mediapacks/sherlock/
Tony, I too, have made that mistake. I think it has something to do with the way they show the credits here that leaves us with the misunderstanding that our PBS is partners in the creation of these productions, if that helps you understand why an American might have that misconception.
Tony, While the BBC is in the driver’s seat, as they say, I was accurate in my terminology and stand by it. This quote comes from your link (and is also visible at the end credits of the show):
Rebecca Eaton is with WGBH in Boston. Co-produce does not imply that PBS makes or produces the series, but does accurately state the nature of the partnership. The definition of co-producer in the Producers Guild of America is: “The Co-Producer / Line Producer is the single individual who has the primary responsibility for the logistics of the production, from pre-production through completion of production; all Department Heads report to the Co-Producer / Line Producer.”
I interpret this to mean that Ms. Eaton is consulted about matters pertaining to airing and promoting the BBC episodes in the US. I suspect that BBC productions cost PBS sufficient money to give her the co-producer credit with her British counterpart. In this instance, no cuts were made on Sherlock. American audiences saw the same film as was shown in the UK.
Since I loved the first series of Sherlock so much, I bought DVD’s of the second series from the UK; I have an all-region player. The version we saw on PBS is, indeed, missing 8 or 9 minutes–removed by the show runners to fit the Masterpiece Theater timeslot. The plot survived intact–as did Irene’s creamy epidermis (which caused controversy at The Daily Mail–enabling them to illustrate a story on the “scandal” with screenshots) and Sherlock’s (which nobody complained about.) But the bits of wit & character building excised from the tightly written script will be restored on DVD’s & BluRays sold here–& when this series begins streaming on Netflix.
It was a treat to watch the show in HD; this episode looks especially sumptuous. And it’s interesting to read the reactions, which reveal more about the reactors than the show. (It’s wise to ignore what Moffat says about his shows–& what people say he has said.) The original Irene, featured in one very brief story by ACD, was an “adventuress” who’d retired from the opera stage, played a trick on Sherlock & then left the country with her new lawyer husband to sink into obscurity as a proper Victorian matron. Feminist icon?
The next two episodes are also excellent, in very different ways.
What does Sherlock have to do with Jane? Wit! (I also think that Mark Gatiss’s Mycroft could fit into Jane’s world.)
Oh no—more Moslem villains with swords…TV made for American phobias. Cell phones that magically cannot be traced…even in the most protectively wired city in Europe. Simple tricks with non-linearity that make the plot seem more sophisticated. No more than the usual menu of modern scriptwriters.
Lara Pulver definitely improved the show…it’s a pity she didn’t get to improve Sherlock. Moral of story? Hard times when neither of them has the power of committment. I prefer Miss Austen’s mysteries.
I agree completely. Nothing beats an Austen novel. Thank you for stopping by!
“made for American phobias?” I subscribe to the online London Times, for its excellent international news & cultural coverage. (I don’t want to admit that it’s mostly for the sharp tongued Caitlin Moran’s TV reviews–she loved Sherlock.)
In today’s edition, there’s yet another article on The Islamic Menace…
I thought it rather apt to use mobile phones as a plot theme.This series was made well over a year ago but it pre-empts, to a certain extent, the Leveson inquiry into phone hacking by newspapers and the trail of e-mails the inquiry is having to sift through. This is all part of modern investigations.
CCTV cameras are not living up to expectations however.The humans that control them forget to record or they are turned off or they regrettably can’t see round corners and also in contradiction to modern myth, they are not everywhere.
Conan Doyle used the technology of the late Victorian early Edwardian period in the original stories such the telephone, bicycles and steam trains so wi fi, mobile phones and e-mails are just an extension.
Muslim villains are not necessarily a bow to American phobias. Teresa May, our home secretary is having problems ( she’s making a right hash of it getting it through all the legal processes) extraditing Abu Hamza, an Egyptian Sunni activist known for his preaching of a violent and politicised interpretation of Islam,from our shores as we blog
Just checked your blog out Kester.
I see you went to Farnborough. I live in Wimbledon, a short drive away.
You must know Jane Austen country well.
Are you a southerner like me?
I love, love, love, love, LOVE this show! I totally agree Benedict Cumberbatch is the best Sherlock EVER. I was not impressed with Robert Downey’s Sherlock. Not to say he hadn’t acted well, but the script was crap, in my opinion. The show, however, has a great script.
@Tony, completely agree about depiction of Muslim villains. Besides the show was produced by BBC, and nothing to do with America.
The first half hour of the new series dragged so for me, that I turned it off. Look how brilliant Sherlock is. Look how brilliant Miss Adler is. Look at them being brilliant together. She is his nemesis. She is the “big bad”. Cumberbatch is intriguing, and Martin Freeman is just plain good, but I need more if I’m going to watch TV. I hope the next two stories in the new series are better than this first one.
We loved the satire on technology and the actors were superb. The scandal in the palace was about male aides and a royal, so making it a female was annoying. Then there were some loose ends to the plot that were fantasies favoring the idiotic plot lines in the main stream media about the terrorists and M16. It was deliberate propaganda embedded in the plot to say that terrorists were about to blow up a plane when most terrorist plots when investigated have been proven to be government orchestrated. How come the brilliant Sherlock didn’t know that? When Basil Rathbone hunted Nazis as Sherlock, the updating of politics worked perfectly, but not here. Sherlock should have been cynical. The technology obsessed Sherlock should have known the story – you can’t direct complex military operations from a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan and you can’t game complex defense systems unless the immensely powerful host government cooperates. See the Kurt Haskell blog for an example of a recent non-event.
Then the ending – why was The Woman on the plane? We didn’t get it. Also, the beheading was just another bow to American and British attempts at creating Islamophobia. The Woman who beat Sherlock in the original was a much better ending as some have pointed out here.
Hi Tony: I’m not sure Vic will want us corresponding through her blog…so I will begin with an observation about the Holmes character. In my experience, people who are brilliant academically and in reasoning are total clutzes at ‘body’ things. I think Conan Doyle recognised that when he provided the stolid Watson to handle the physical half of the partnership. This is what modern adaptions have lost…trying to make Holmes a Victorian Superman.
On Britain as a surveillance state I’m going by the observations of a friend who just spent three months+ there at the Public Records Office doing research for her PhD—she was appalled at the changes since 2006-7 when she started research there, and reports she found London very creepy.
I was what was called a ‘student apprentice’ at RAE Farnborough in the late 50s, but have rarely been in that area since—I have lived in Canada since 1967. My interest in Jane Austen country had not evolved at the time…to my regret. My current writing is going Regency and I even have ‘our Jane’ as a character in one of my trial pieces—I would love to talk West London and Austen Country with you if you care to drop me a note on my gmail at kwhyte2@gmail.com
“you can’t direct complex military operations from a cave in the mountains of Afghanistan and you can’t game complex defense systems unless the immensely powerful host government cooperates.”
Yes but…. wasn’t the original point about Sherlock Holmes to create an exaggeration and a person who was unbelievable? Your comment brings us back to the real world which i am not sure we really want to be with Sherloch at our side. Holmes has always been about an unreal world. Fantasy ruled for Conan Doyle so we can fantasise about Sherlock orchestrating everything from his room at 221b Baker Street surely.
Just wait until you see The Reichenabch Fall. cushions at the ready to cover your eyes. Unbelief will certainly reign then!!!!!!!
I almost forgot, Cumberpatch’s lack of artistry with the violin, can’t even fake vibrato, adds an element of disbelief that shouldn’t be there. Fantasy shouldn’t be an excuse to promote phony propaganda. Sherlock, the original, is believable as fantasy just like every great work of fiction.
I’ve seen the real Reichenbach Falls years ago – do you mean an episode?
The last episode in ‘The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is entitled: ‘The Final Problem’. KEEP YOUR EYES WIDE OPEN when you (approximately) reach frames 48:30-48:50!!!
Yes,Patty an episode.Notice the missing , “s,” from , “Falls,” though I’m not sure I should have flagged it up for you. You might not enjoy it.The title of this episode is a play on words.
I didn’t watch the first season but after younger friends enthused about Cumberbatch, thought I’d give the 2nd season a try. To me, it was a loss. I thought Robert Downey’s performance, which I was prepared to dislike as a traditionalist and admirer of Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke, was much superior. If the show of skin is to calm those who have questions concerning Holmes and Watson’s sexuality, shame on the producers. I think they were bowing to American prejudices rather than British.
Robin C.
I agree with you, Robin. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would be jumping up and down with rage in his grave!!!… If one just took the time to read all the (original) episodes in all of the proceeding (original) series, maybe one would be more enlightened of Holmes’ and Dr Watson’s true characters (and true personalities). And justice would prevail.
Still think Jeremy Brett is THE Holmes — everything about the Granada series was perfect in my book: Hardwicke is the best Watson, Rosalie Williams the best Mrs. Hudson, etc. But this new series is awfully entertaining. I like Freeman’s interpretation of Watson, but as good as Cumberbatch is, he does seem like a brilliant, crazy automaton. Where Brett is far superior, I think, is in his ability to suggest with just a look or a turn of his head the profound emotions that Holmes does possess — because he IS human. He may not be able to let himself feel them very often, or know how to express them when he does, but Brett’s Holmes does have them. Also, while Brett’s Holmes tends to look down on conventional, “middle-class morality” and think outside the box, he still has that code of honor that a Victorian gentleman would. So you can trust him. Cumberbatch’s Holmes seems a bit of a sociopath.
Pulver was great as Irene Adler; she and the writers made it easy to believe Holmes would be fascinated by her mind. But that hypersexualized, “hip” component put me off — that tendency to depict women as enlightened and modern if they use sex as a weapon and divorce it from any sentiment or romance. Also, she’s a much nastier character than the Irene Adler we meet in Conan Doyle’s story, and in the Granada production of “A Scandal in Bohemia.”
Yes, KatharineL — you’ve just hit the mark, thank you.
Perhaps hard-sell commercialism (so what’s new???) made it necessary for the producers of this latest version to show graphic sex/nudity and propaganda motivating racial hatred — way beyond the standards of propriety and good taste — to entice the impressionable viewing audience to ‘buy’ the various promoted merchandise (which means another highly profitable enterprise for those complex ‘networks of hierarchies’ involved in its production).
Anyway, here’s the link to an e-book version of the story:
http://publicliterature.org/books/sherlock_holmes/1
Oh, my–I missed the graphic sex! I saw quite a bit of skin–both Irene’s & Sherlock’s–but no naughty bits at all…
Yup, the BBC & PBS are well known for their commercialism!
Jazmin and Bridget, you don’t understand. The BBC is non commercial. It is financed from the British tax payer. We pay a special licence fee for the BBC.
Tony, I DO understand. I regularly watch BBC shows, as I love BBC programs!;-), so I know it’s non-commercial. I even saw myself in one episode of Masterchef on BBC1 (Series 8, Episode 5, set in Bath during the 11th Jane Austen Festival). When I said, ‘hard-sell commercialism’ I was pertaining to the abovementioned ‘complex networks of hierarchies’, of which/whom I have no intention to publicly name!…
Not Bridget, do you think a full-frontal shot is required to qualify as a hyper-sexualized approach?
Reply to Tony Grant: Sorry, sarcasm can be difficult to detect on the ‘net.
I’m fully aware that BBC is NOT commercial. PBS isn’t either, but political forces have reduced the small amount of government funds it receives; thus the commercials that run before & after each Masterpiece presentation here; thus the cuts to each episode. I was defending the episode from claims of “commercialism” direct against the content.
To KatherineL: I just don’t think that Sherlock qualifies as “hyper-sexualized.” In olden days a glimpse of stocking was looked on as something shocking…
“while Brett’s Holmes tends to look down on conventional, “middle-class morality” and think outside the box, he still has that code of honor that a Victorian gentleman would. So you can trust him. Cumberbatch’s Holmes seems a bit of a sociopath.”
The original Holmes was an Victorian gentleman and I agree Jeremy Brett does that Victorian/Edwardian Holmes excellently.The looks and glances communicate in a very direct way.But the Holmes in this series has been transported to nowadays, a world of psychoanalisis, therapists and belief that genius is next to madness. I suppose when you change periods in history you have to convert to the modern analysis of human beings too. The dominatrix Irene Adler getting into Holmes’s psyche is a modern interpretation of a power struggle.
However, having said that, Shakespeares analysis of the human condition always translates very nicely into any century or culture but he was a genius.. Conan Doyle was just very clever and entertaining.
Well, genius has long been seen as close to madness. I can’t buy Cumberbatch’s Holmes’ lack of an emotional life as being a necessary product of moving the story to our own times (if I understand you correctly); haven’t human beings always had emotional lives (some more than others, of course), even before Dr. Freud came along? That’s why your Shakespeare comment is so “spot on.” Anyway, I just think Brett was much better at conveying a man who, while being extraordinarily gifted, peculiar and rather damaged, was still a believable man. Cumberbatch is very good at that unbalanced genius bit, though; thank goodness Watson is there to rein him in! This Holmes seems more amoral — which is modern, I guess, but somewhat frightening, too.
Ha! ha! this article Vic, has made curmudgeons of us all.
The new series must be getting something right. We are all engaged with it.
Really, pearls have been clutched!
What’s the male equivalent? Dropping the snuff box?
And getting some things very wrong, Tony. No one has mentioned that the program (like much of what passes for screen drama today) violates the most elementary principles of fiction—that the ending of the story must be shaped by the beginning. Try what this script does in written fiction and an author would be laughed out of the house. We used to scoff about the eighteen-wheeler coming in from stage left to crush the villain and restore a happy ending.
Now, folks, tell me what happened to the female person’s predicament that necessitated the visit to Buck House? Where was the set-up for the imperilled plane in the opening scenes? The plot violations are huge because the audience of visual fare are so spellbound by the ‘pretty’ pictures that their critical faculties are rendered incompetent.
There—I wasn’t going to mention this and be a curmudgeon, but I couldn’t let Tony have the last word.
I agree, Kester2. The ending was absolutely silly. It seemed like it belonged to a whole other story. I have no problem joyously suspending disbelief, but this was too much.
Katharine and Chris, i kind of replied to you both above in reply to another comment. The comments to this post are becoming cluttered and scattered now. But great literature doesn’t have to have nice structures “that the ending of the story must be shaped by the beginning.” Moby Dick is a rambling losely structured piece of magnificence and so is Pickwick Papers. They both ramble along diverging off into a hinterland of interests as the writer feels fit. Moby Dick is probably more structured than Pickwick Papers. I suppose you will turn round and say Pickwick Papers is not a novel but hay ho as we often say!!!!!!!!
I wasn’t about to make any such persnickety point, Tony. I would point out, again, that the ending to Belgravia seemed to belong to a whole different movie and that while we can expect the bonds of credibility to be stretched a bit, this one stretched them to the breaking point — at least for some of us. The thing about Holmes is that Conan Doyle makes us believe what he pulls off is possible — if one is brilliant. “When one eliminates the impossible, whatever remains …” For a white guy with an English accent to infiltrate a terrorist organization in the Middle East, the RIGHT organization, mind you, and to do it in time to save his lady-love, and to finagle it so that he will be in on what they intend to be her execution — um, yeah!
KatharineL thank you so much. I thought that I was the only person who watches this show who found the ending to be a bit “out there”. Anyone I asked about how he pulled it off just brushes it off as minor or can’t answer me at all.
If these two spirits were to have a telepathic communication with me, I would perhaps get these messages:
(1) Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is determined to reincarnate !pronto as an Avatar, to set things right;
(2) Jane Austen would reincarnate and exchange places with Amanda Price (‘Lost in Austen’), to beat Georgette Heyer’s record in the number of bestselling novels published… and hopefully, to live happily ever after with her very own Mr Darcy (although I feel she would be much happier with Captain Frederick Wentworth, who wrote the most heartwarming love letter ever!;o).
Captain Wentworth’s letter to Anne
You all might be interested in the podcast interview with Lara Pulver at Baker Street Babes: http://www.bakerstreetbabes.com/2012/05/episode-26-lara-pulver-irene-adler.html
Copied & pasted from:
http://www.mysterynet.com/holmes/01scandalbohemia/
“What a woman — oh, what a woman!” cried the King of Bohemia, when we had all three read this epistle. “Did I not tell you how quick and resolute she was? Would she not have made an admirable queen? Is it not a pity that she was not on my level?”
“From what I have seen of the lady she seems indeed to be on a very different level to your Majesty,” said Holmes coldly. “I am sorry that I have not been able to bring your Majesty’s business to a more successful conclusion.”
“On the contrary, my dear sir,” cried the King; “nothing could be more successful. I know that her word is inviolate. The photograph is now as safe as if it were in the fire.”
“I am glad to hear your Majesty say so.”
“I am immensely indebted to you. Pray tell me in what way I can reward you. This ring ” He slipped an emerald snake ring from his finger and held it out upon the palm of his hand.
“Your Majesty has something which I should value even more highly,” said Holmes.
“You have but to name it.”
“This photograph!”
The King stared at him in amazement.
“Irene’s photograph!” he cried. “Certainly, if you wish it.”
“I thank your Majesty. Then there is no more to be done in the matter. I have the honour to wish you a very good-morning.” He bowed, and, turning away without observing the hand which the King had stretched out to him, he set off in my company for his chambers.
And that was how a great scandal threatened to affect the kingdom of Bohemia, and how the best plans of Mr. Sherlock Holmes were beaten by a woman’s wit. He used to make merry over the cleverness of women, but I have not heard him do it of late. And when he speaks of Irene Adler, or when he refers to her photograph, it is always under the honourable title of the woman.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_Adler
Character sources
Lillie Langtry, one possible source for the character of Irene Adler
Adler’s career as a theatrical performer who becomes the lover of a powerful aristocrat had several precedents. The most obvious source is Lola Montez, a dancer who became the lover of Ludwig I of Bavaria and influenced national politics. Montez is identified as a model for Adler by several writers.
Closer to home is the singer Lillie Langtry, the lover of Edward, the Prince of Wales. As Julian Wolff points out, it was well known that Langtry was born in Jersey (she was called the “Jersey Lily”) and Adler is born in New Jersey. Langtry had later had several other aristocratic lovers and her relationships had been speculated upon in the public press in the years before Doyle’s story was published.
Along with the singer Ludmilla Hubel, alleged lover of Archduke John Salvator of Austria, these were suggested as Doyle’s inspiration for Adler in his lifetime.
Appearances
Irene Adler is also mentioned in the following stories:
“A Case of Identity”
“The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle”
“The Five Orange Pips” (probably; see below)
“His Last Bow”
In “The Five Orange Pips”, Holmes mentions that he has been beaten four times, thrice by a man and once by a woman. Since “The Five Orange Pips” is set in September 1887, before “A Scandal in Bohemia”, which is set in March 1888, Holmes could not be referring to the specific appearance of Irene Adler during “A Scandal in Bohemia” if the chronology is correct. Doyle had made clear chronological mistakes in other Holmes stories, and no other woman is mentioned to ever be held in the same regard by Holmes or to have beaten Holmes. Also, in “A Case of Identity”, Watson mentions that Adler is the only person he has ever known to have beaten Holmes.
Husband and I LOVED season 1, but only LIKED season 2. We’d like more crime solving and less introspective brooding.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/03/sherlock-sexist-steven-moffat
Thank you for this link, Jazmin! That’s what I meant by the hypersexualized approach this version of Irene Adler takes, and what’s wrong with it:
“her acumen and agency were undermined every which way. Not-so-subtly channelling the spirit of the predatory femme fatal, Adler’s power became, in Moffat’s hands, less a matter of brains, and more a matter of knowing “what men like” and how to give it to them; of having them by the sexual short and curlies, or, perhaps more aptly, on a nice short leash.”
Yes, yes, one can quote Cole Porter’s “In olden days a glimpse of stocking” line at me, Jazmin and the author, and while it’s true that a modern-day telling of A Scandal in Bohemia would have to differ somewhat from Conan Doyle’s, what Moffat did to the character violates Conan Doyle’s conception of her. He both changes and cheapens Irene Adler. In Moffat’s version, she is both a cartoon-character femme fatale and a damsel in distress. The author is right, the 2012 version of Irene Adler is much more patronizing that the late 19th century version.
Thought the Reichenbach Fall was excellent, but this new version of The Hound of the Baskervilles left me cold. They rely awfully heavily on evil gov’t conspiracies in this series, and I thought it was obvious who the villain was from the get-go. And as much as I like Rupert Graves, it felt totally forced for Lestrade to be in this one.
THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES