I DO watch Doctor Who - however, I don't read discussions about Doctor Who, or think about it very critically. It's my "fun" show (along with Merlin). It's true, I didn't much like how they handled River...but I actually haven't thought much about Amy's character or story-arc, and I'm probably not likely too. I sort of just turn off that bit of my brain when I watch Doctor Who (along with the bit of my brain that cares how good special affects are, or gets annoyed by an excessive use of deus ex machina).
But yeah, I have noticed that even before Sherlock aired, people were saying stuff like "I hope Moffat doesn't mess up Irene like he's messed up the Amy/River/Whoever" - which, is why I said that it seemed that some people who were already pissed off at Moffat for other reasons were determined to hate whatever he did on Sherlock as well.
It all leads back to my opinion that we should stop making female characters the spokesmen for the entire gender. Yes, we can get mad at Moffat for ruining River Song, but I think we should get mad at him for not being able to write a CHARACTER effectively, not get mad at him for being sexist. But, you know, that's my dream world.
To answer your question about Irene and the male gaze... I'd say No to both. It's true, the first time we see her, we get a lovely shot of her ass as she wakes away (and it is GLORIOUS) - so, that's the "male" gaze, I suppose...though, as she was in charge in that moment, I'm not sure it quiet qualifies. When she appears naked, well, she's naked - I'm sure many people would accuse it as being an object for the male gaze, but I did not see it that way AT ALL. She just happens to be naked - it's a tool to throw Sherlock off his game, and it works well. Sherlock is thrown. John is uncomfortable. Irene is reveling in her very early win in the battle.
Furthermore, in terms of just being filmed as "sexy" (object of male gaze or no), I think the director and cinematographer actually treated Sherlock and Irene the exact same. Sherlock actually appears naked BEFORE Irene in a similar bid for dominance. The difference, of course, is that Sherlock doesn't sit in someone's lap, nor is he overtly sexual in his nakedness...but that's because he's Sherlock and it's a scene with his brother...sexuality is not a tool that he can use at that moment, even if he possessed it. Irene, however, can - because she knows/believes that sexuality makes Sherlock uncomfortable.
Irene is, actually, from beginning to end, portrayed as a female!Sherlock. We see her first with the riding crop - just as we first saw Sherlock in ASiP with the riding crop... yes, people lust after her, but in our first scene with Sherlock back in ASiP, we also had Molly lusting after Sherlock.
So, the short answer is: No, I don't think Irene was an object for the male gaze.
I also don't think she was an inspirational role model for empowered women. She was smart, yes, and she was confident, yes...but she was also blackmailing the British government and in league with a terrorist. I certainly HOPE she wasn't meant as a role model.
I think, she was just Irene...and I think we were supposed to perceive her as Sherlock perceived her: a cunning opponent in a game of intelligence and dominance.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-01-05 09:01 pm (UTC)But yeah, I have noticed that even before Sherlock aired, people were saying stuff like "I hope Moffat doesn't mess up Irene like he's messed up the Amy/River/Whoever" - which, is why I said that it seemed that some people who were already pissed off at Moffat for other reasons were determined to hate whatever he did on Sherlock as well.
It all leads back to my opinion that we should stop making female characters the spokesmen for the entire gender. Yes, we can get mad at Moffat for ruining River Song, but I think we should get mad at him for not being able to write a CHARACTER effectively, not get mad at him for being sexist. But, you know, that's my dream world.
To answer your question about Irene and the male gaze... I'd say No to both. It's true, the first time we see her, we get a lovely shot of her ass as she wakes away (and it is GLORIOUS) - so, that's the "male" gaze, I suppose...though, as she was in charge in that moment, I'm not sure it quiet qualifies. When she appears naked, well, she's naked - I'm sure many people would accuse it as being an object for the male gaze, but I did not see it that way AT ALL. She just happens to be naked - it's a tool to throw Sherlock off his game, and it works well. Sherlock is thrown. John is uncomfortable. Irene is reveling in her very early win in the battle.
Furthermore, in terms of just being filmed as "sexy" (object of male gaze or no), I think the director and cinematographer actually treated Sherlock and Irene the exact same. Sherlock actually appears naked BEFORE Irene in a similar bid for dominance. The difference, of course, is that Sherlock doesn't sit in someone's lap, nor is he overtly sexual in his nakedness...but that's because he's Sherlock and it's a scene with his brother...sexuality is not a tool that he can use at that moment, even if he possessed it. Irene, however, can - because she knows/believes that sexuality makes Sherlock uncomfortable.
Irene is, actually, from beginning to end, portrayed as a female!Sherlock. We see her first with the riding crop - just as we first saw Sherlock in ASiP with the riding crop... yes, people lust after her, but in our first scene with Sherlock back in ASiP, we also had Molly lusting after Sherlock.
So, the short answer is: No, I don't think Irene was an object for the male gaze.
I also don't think she was an inspirational role model for empowered women. She was smart, yes, and she was confident, yes...but she was also blackmailing the British government and in league with a terrorist. I certainly HOPE she wasn't meant as a role model.
I think, she was just Irene...and I think we were supposed to perceive her as Sherlock perceived her: a cunning opponent in a game of intelligence and dominance.