The Cutprice Guignol

The Ninth Year: The Haunting of Swill House

Yes Means Yes

So, as with many of these articles, this one got started from a conversation I was having with some friends about consent, rape, and sexual assault (we also occasionally eat free cake and twirl about on spinny chairs). And it struck me that, while I’ve written quite a bit about sexual assault and rape in fictional media (see: Fifty Shades of Grey), I’ve not actually said much on the subject of real-life rape. Trigger warning, obviously, for discussions of rape and sexual assault.

I unequivocally support the notion of Yes Means Yes- that is, that consent does not constitute the lack of a no, but rather the presence of a yes (or of another kind of affirmative consent- you can read more about that here). And I’d like to talk about why. Because I’m tired of explaining to people why supporting affirmative consent is not a radical act.

Look, I’ll get straight to it: if I find out that one more of my female friends being raped and having it shoved aside as a “consequence” for “reckless” behaviour, if I hear one more story about a guy being raped that ends with “but he still got laid though”, if I step out of my house one more time and have to face someone grabbing my body in the street, if I hear one more person asking “Well, what was she wearing?”, if I hear one more punchline ending with a joke about prisoners getting raped, if I hear one more story like this one, or this one, or this one, I’m going to fucking scream. It blows my mind how fucking mixed-up our society’s view of what consent constitutes is. It fucking terrifies me, because I, along with millions of people in this country and across the world, have to face the repercussions of what happens when we don’t teach people to actively seek consent for sexual activity from someone who is of age, concious, and not under the influence of drugs or alcohol. All the above scenarios, while not entirely preventable with yes means yes in action, would at least be seriously different if people took the acquisition of affirmative consent seriously.

And yes, I’ve heard the ridiculous arguments against yes means yes. Yes, I know that some people are concerned that having to acquire consent of the people they’re having sex with will ruin their sex lives. And to those people, I’d like to say this: if you’re genuinely concerned that asking the person you’re having sex with whether or not they’d actually like to be doing it with you will get in the way of you getting laid, you need to take a serious look at your sexual encounters. Why does the thought of asking for consent bother you? Seriously, why? If you’re having consensual sex anyway, the only thing that will change is the occasional “Hey, is it okay if I do X?”. If you’re not sure, then I can see why actually asking that question might freak you out so much.

So, that’s why I support affirmative consent, and I always will. Until we get to a place where we can trust that people recognise what consent is or isn’t, I’m quite happy encouraging people to wait for a “yes” before doing any manner of filthy, disgusting, and utterly consensual stuff they want to get down to.

February in Tights, Part Two: Batman vs Superman Final Trailer

Yes, I was planning to take a look at Arrow for the second part of my month of various superhero reviews, but when I heard the new Batman vs Superman trailer had dropped, I figured it was as good a time as any to take a little detour down memory lane (I’ve spent many a happy hour reviewing these trailers before) and spend some time with my all-time favourite actors, Ben Affleck and Henry Cavill. Or, you know, rip the violent piss out of a film that’s going to be pushing a six out of ten at best. Let’s get started!

0:02: OOOH THIS IS THE BATMAN TRAILER, COOL! Can’t be worse than Gotham.

0:15: Batman’s wing things look dumb as fuck. I once made a bat Halloween costume by stapling black binbags to the inside of my sleeves to create wings, and that is PRECISELY what they looked like.

0:24: Okay, that’s cool, whatever. But the problem is that that’s (ostensibly, stuntmen aside) Ben Affleck inside that suit. You know, Ben Affleck, everyone’s hot dad! Ben Affleck, he of the pious political thriller! Ben Affleck! BEN AFFLECK! If there’s one man who I just couldn’t take seriously as Batman, it’s this guy. And, like, Michael Cera, I guess. Though that would be hilarious.

0:34: I want you to do something for me, if you’ve got a spare ten minutes. Go away and watch this scene from The Dark Knight (that it’s a Batman film is a mere coincidence; I was just looking for the best superhero action sequences). It’s fucking thrilling, Nolan at his action-auteur best; the lack of music, the brilliant sound design, the fast-paced but coherent plot, all climaxing in that truck dangling in mid-air in silence for a moment that has you genuinely holding your breath; THAT’S an action sequence. And tell me, honestly, does this look better than that? Does it?

0:36: Ah, he did punch his head through a floor though, so alright.

0:44: Ugh, Brucefleck just isn’t working for me. He’s barely got his eyes open in this shot, for God’s sake!

0:56: Pause at that shot for a moment. Isn’t that a wierd shot? Not in a good way or a bad way, just in a “huh” way. I don’t hate it, but I’ve got a horrible feeling it’s going to fall under the same banner as “Superman dissapears into a pile of skulls”  from Man of Steel, ie, someone put Zack Snyder in the corner for a bit.

1:05: “GOD VERSUS MAN”. I mean, you’ve got to fancy the God, don’t you? Not the way I fancy Henry Cavill, you understand, GODDAMMIT I PROMISED MYSELF I WOULDN’T GET DISTRACTED THIS TIME-

1:12: Oh hey, Jesse Eisenberg, thanks for reminding me why I have even a vague interest in this movie!

1:19: Oh good, what Man of Steel was really missing was people talking down to Amy Adams.

1:27: Montage, montage…hold the bus, was that Wonder Woman?!

1:33: Montage, montage, crunchy guitar riff, montage. I’m bored.

1:35: Ugh, I think if Ben Affleck was standing that close to me I’d want to drape a napkin over my shoulder or something. I just…nope.

1:37: EVERYONE SHUT UP WONDER WOMAN’S ABOUT TO GET A LINE

1:46: Of all the directors in all the world to bring Wonder Woman to the big screen, I wish it could have been ANYONE but “abused women in scanty clothes with big guns is EMPOWERMENT!” Zack Snyder. Literally anyone.

1:55: Look, I don’t begrudge superhero movies existing; whatever, have your fun. I begrudge them being nothing but excuses for two testosterone-ridden man-children to punch out the homoerotic urges of the audience, however.

1:57: Jesse Eisenberg looks worse and worse every time I see him, which concerns me. He’s a genuinely superb actor (go watch him in The Double if you don’t believe me), but this movie is already overstuffed as it is. I just don’t think there’s room for him here.

UGH FUCK FINE I’ll see it at the cinema.

 

 

 

February in Tights, Part One: Gotham

It’s been a while since I’ve taken on a bit of themed blogging (RIP Doctor Who recaps, at least till this brutal last term of university is over). And, since I’ve been watching and thoroughly enjoying the almost grotesquely campy Legends of Tomorrow and I recently imbued myself with multi-coloured comic book supervillain hair-

WIN_20160202_13_11_35_Pro

 

-I figured that I should take a look at some of the other superhero shows currently doing the rounds on TV. There’s plenty to choose from, and I’m open to suggestions, so if there’s something you think I’d utterly adore or totally detest and want to see reviewed here, feel free to comment/tweet/howl to the moon about it till I get it done. I’ll be kicking off this week with Gotham. So, without further ado, let’s get started on February in Tights!

Right, so, when Gotham first came out, it was pretty inescapable. There were ads on the side of buses, for fuck’s sake. And I’ll admit that I was pretty interested. I’ve always liked the character of Jim Gordon, and it’s always fun to get a chance to revel in the extensive and especially fiendish rogue’s gallery that the Batman universe offers. I watched a couple of episodes, lost interest, and didn’t give it much thought till I decided to make it my inaugural post for this month’s blogging.

Now, as a casual comic-book fan, Batman is my favourite superhero. How could he not be? With oodles of angst, cool gadgets, and a slick playboy alter-ego, he’s by far the coolest caped crusader on the block. And that’s partly what Gotham’s appeal was to me and many other fans- a dark, gritty, live-action Batman TV show! Why hasn’t this happened before? HOW COULD THIS POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

cillian_murphy_as_scarecrow_by_drinkyourmilkshake-d49cbfv

But, fuck me, Gotham went wrong. It’s hard for me to convey just how much this show’s continued popularity and critical acclaim (?!?!?!?!) baffles me, because I honestly think Gotham is maybe the worst show to come out of the last few years on TV. And yes, I’m including disasters like Glee and Smash in that list, because while they were terrible, they were at least terrible in a disastrous and occasionally amusing way. Gotham is an endless, nightmarish trudge of a show, a funeral dirge for my interest in the Batman universe. All things admitted, I watched till the end of season one in a sort of horrified daze, so I all my criticism relates to the episodes I have seen.

mckenziegotham

I swear to God I sometimes don’t notice Ben McKenzie in frame he’s so forgettably bland.

It stars Ben McKenzie as a young Jim Gordon, a police detective in Gotham attempting to keep the city clean while cracking the murder of the Waynes, a homicide that left only their son, Bruce, alive. This offers a problem right off the bat (if you’ll excuse the pun)-what makes Jim Gordon so interesting to me is that he’s a consummate good guy, a man of morals who’s uneasy alliance with the violent vigilantism of Batman gives his character some internal tension. Take that away, and you’ve just got a paper-thin hero archetype patting little Bruce Wayne on the head. And yes, you read that right- this is a Batman series in which Batman is a small, whiny child, one who reaches staggering levels of irritating by the end of the first fucking episode, let alone the first season. I hate ripping on child actors, but is this really the best one they could find for such a pivotal role in the show? I mean, it’s not as if he has much to work of off-Sean Pertwee straining to be Michael Caine as Alfred and falling far, far short, Camren Bicondova, apparently playing a young Catwoman but coming off as more Victorian-era orphan, and Ben McKenzie along with various other Noble Cops boring the audience to suicide.

penguin-gotham

Waddle off to a better show, Robin Lord Taylor.

The rest of the cast is slightly better, if only because they get to play the infinitely more interesting villains. Robin Lord Taylor as the Penguin is about the only one to come out of the show unscathed, in an edgy and mouthy performance that just vaults passable but looks Oscar-worthy in comparison to the rest of the cast. Jada Pinkett-Smith as Fish Mooney is neither camp enough to be outrageous fun or straight enough to be taken seriously, no matter how hard she tries to get a handle on the character. Nicholas D’Agosto (who will always be “Oh, that guy from Final Destination 5, right?”, no matter how many critically acclaimed shows he features in) as Harvey Dent is…there, I guess? Milo Ventimiglia hits a new career low (which I thought was genuinely impossible after Heroes) in a horrendously bastardised version of Ogre.

gothamwelcomeback0008

Victor Zsasz is also always followed about by two women for literally no reason, because women as props is SO ground-breaking!

And, since I mention it, one of the things that fucks me off about Gotham so much is that it insists on butchering some of Batman’s coolest villains. Take Victor Zsasz, for example, my absolute stone-cold favourite Batman villain of all time- I was pumped beyond belief when I found out he was going to turn up in this series. And what started out as a killer so unhinged there weren’t spaces between the words in his internal monologue winds up on Gotham a….vaguely threatening mob grunt? Ogre, a character driven insane by years of torture at the hands of scientists attempting to find the next stage of human evolution, turns up as a…good-looking sociopath who kills women who don’t meet his standards? To me, at least, these changes are baffling-why the fuck would you make a Batman show about the origins of Batman and his greatest enemies only to completely ignore what they actually are? Why not just create a show all of your own? Well, we know the answer to that question: Batman sells. Even if he’s a kid and the villains are almost all terrible or nonexistent.

gotham-fish-mooney

Jada Pinkett-Smith is better than this, god-dangit.

So, yes, I guess my biggest problem with Gotham is the fact that it doesn’t feel like a Batman show. That would always have been a risk with a story of this nature, but, in failing to build a convincingly Batman-y world, Gotham transforms into a generic procedural with the Bat-signal blasting from it in an attempt to con in new fans.

So, what should I review next?

A Wanker’s Literary Reaction: Legends of Tomorrow

I’m no fan of superhero media- films, TV, even comics, a lot of it just leaves me cold. One of my main problems with superhero stuff is that it seems to be to keen to go “dark”-after the success of the Dark Knight franchise (which has a lot to answer for), a clutch of superhero movies have attempted to recapture it’s unique brand by surgically removing their sense of humour (hello, Man of Steel! Take a seat, Gotham!).

Wentworth Miller is just too fucking much in this show, I’m telling you.

For me, the genre practically requires a healthy dose of fun to function. Which is part of the reason why I’ve always had time for DC’s TV universe- despite their underwhelming cinematic offerings, they’ve created Arrow (which is pretty good), The Flash (one of my favourite things on TV) and, now, Legends of Tomorrow, a time-travelling team-up series that proves my point-superhero media can survive purely on it’s sense of fun.

Oh fuck off Hawkman.

The show revolves around Rip Turner- a time master from the future (and yes, I know that this already sounds like a Doctor Who rip-off, especially considering ex-Tardis inhabitant Arthur Darvill plays him, but Rip existed before Doctor Who was a twinkle in Sydney Newman’s eye) who travels back in time to form a group of extraordinary humans to take down the immortal despot Vandal Savage who’s taken over the world in Rip Turner’s future. I mean, I was already interested when a show that apparently wasn’t an SNL piss-take had actual characters called Rip Turner and Vandal fucking Savage (played by, no joke, an actor called Casper Crump, which is perhaps a better supervillain name than the one the show gave him). Now, the reviews for the show have been pretty lukewarm at the moment (ironic for a show with two characters who shoot fire) and I’m here to contest that.

Vandal Savage. Do you love him the way I do?

I’ll admit too, that, the show had brought together several of my favourite aspects of the Arrow and Flash universes (universii?). For one, it had Wentworth Miller as Captain Cold, perhaps the most outrageously camp performance on TV right now (even counting all of Ryan Murphy’s “characters”, which is really saying something) and for my money the most comic book villain-ish of the comic book villains around. Add to that the swaggering fun of Caity Lotz as White Canary, the square-jawed charm of Brandon Routh’s Atom, and Ciara Renee’s compassionate and curious Hawkgirl, amongst several others, and you’ve already gathered together a pretty fun group, one that I would be content to watch just goofing off in a giant time machine for twelve episodes. Of course, there are weak links- I will never stop loathing the patronising awfulness of Hawkman- but bringing together a collection of series-favourites, dumping them in a show together, and sitting back to wait for the boom isn’t the worst premise for a show I’ve ever seen.

Arthur Darvill, definitely not sent back in time by the Weeping Angels this time.

And yes, the plot is ridiculous and overwrought, prancing through time and space (COUGH COUGH NOTHING TO DO WITH DOCTOR WHO OF COURSE COUGH) with no real sense of weight, and I’m not totally convinced that the show can really maintain this plot for anything more than a handful of episodes at best. The dialogue is often quotably bad, the acting is about at the level you would expect for a bunch of hyper-heroes, and Rip Turner has all the nuance and depth that you’d expect a character called Rip Turner to have.

Based on his level of camp here, Wentworth Miller might be my soulmate.

But that’s not the point- the point is that I will defend to the death the right of shows to not aim for cerebral brilliance, innovative storytelling, or ground-breaking characters, if that show at least understands it’s main function is to entertain. I will defend Wentworth Miller purring every line like it’s a lungful of smoke he’s not done with yet; I will defend Arthur Darvill stomping around all serious in a big jacket. I will defend these things because they’re fun, and that’s what the superhero genre is when boiled down to it’s very roots. With so many movies and TV shows intent of turning the genre into a po-faced parody of itself, Legends of Tomorrow is a refreshingly doofy leap in the right direction.

 

Steven Moffat Leaves Doctor Who: An Incoherent Reaction

So, in the last hour, I discovered that Doctor Who showrunner Steven Moffat has quit and been replaced by Chris Chibnall. This timeline roughly sums up my reaction.

  1. WHAT.
  2. WAIT.
  3. NO.
  4. YES.
  5. YES!
  6. Oh my God, it’s finally over. There are no comaparisons to make to my relief that wouldn’t be offensively hyperbolic and also entirely accurate.
  7. If someone is fucking with me on this, I honestly and very literally cannot be held responsible for my actions.
  8. I’m already feeling a little bit melancholy about it, because I’ve written so many terrible things about Steven Moffat’s tenure on the show over the years that I’m worried I’ve hurt his feelings. I STILL LOVE THE EMPTY CHILD STEVEN.
  9. Not that melancholy though. I’m pouring myself a glass of wine and going through the Twitter reactions.
  10. Huh, guess I should check what else Chris Chibnall has written. To Wikipedia!
  11. Broadchurch- good. Some of the last season of Torchwood- concerning. Some of the early seasons of Torchwood-encouraging.
  12. I don’t recognise the names of any of his Doctor Who episodes and it’s causing me something of an identity crisis.
  13. Oh yeah, those episodes. About the things. And stuff. All of them are bad to okay.
  14. That’s probably not a good sign.
  15. But if Steven Moffat wrote great standalone episodes under other showrunners and had a pretty terrible tenure showrunning himself, maybe that means Chris Chibnall will have a great run? Maybe that’s how this works?
  16. Oh, I have to wait till 2018 to find out anyway. That’s so far in the future that I’ll probably be dead, or at the very least living in Glasgow.
  17. Apparently Steven Moffat is spending a full year building up to his epic final season, and frankly this worries me deeply. I mean, if he thought season nine- in all it’s violently awful glory-was epic, I am sort of grotesquely looking forward to the note he sends himself out on.
  18. A chorus line of high-kicking Osgoods and Weeping Angels, no doubt. Nah, that might actually be fun.
  19. But I’m getting distracted! Time to lull in my warm bubble of happiness for a few days.
  20. And re-watch all of series nine. Just to remind myself that while things might not get better, they surely can’t get worse.

A Wanker’s Literary Reaction: Suicide Squad Trailer

So, I’ve been away for a while- but when I saw that the new Suicide Squad trailer was getting released last night, I couldn’t resist the chance to take it apart. So, without further ado, let’s take a look at DC’s next potentially catastrophic entry into their canon.

0:01: HOLD THE FUCK UP IS THAT BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY?! This is already off to a bad start. The last trailer had fantastic music, but Bohemian Rhapsody is kind of like the bread and butter of epic music; you clearly haven’t put yourself out to come up with it. And this is coming from someone who loves Queen.

0:06: WILL SMITH YUS. I am completely ambivalent towards every single other actor, particularly we-really-wanted-Tom-Hardy Joel Kinnamen.

0:22:  Amanda Waller is such a slammingly good role for Viola Davis, a woman who I can literally never grow tired of watching. In fact, she might be the tipping point reason for me actually seeing this damn movie. I’ll make a note on my ticket that I’m ONLY seeing it for her, though, and not because I thought Jared Leto looked just too good to miss.

0:35: I still really like Will Smith, god-dangit. I have a fond hangover from Men in Black that will never die.

0:47: This guy listing off the special abilities of the movie’s leading characters sounds like he’s reading back a takeaway order over the phone. Is this deliberate? Either way, it’s shite.

0:50: I HAVE CARA DELEVIGNE RUMMY, REPEAT, I HAVE DELEVIGNE RUMMY! I wonder if she’s going to get a line in this trailer?

1:02: Jesus Christ, is that the best line reading they had for Harley Quinn? That is not good news. I’ve never much rated Margot Robbie as an actress, but I had to look away from the screen for a few seconds there to spare us both the embarrassment.

1:11: Oh, some actual action sequences! That makes a nice change from last time.

1:22: Aaaand we have Joker, repeat, we have Joker. I mean, Jared Leto was sort of doomed from the start with this role, but every time I see him he looks like a too-serious cosplayer who’s spent a little too long poring over The Killing Joke and doesn’t like it when people laugh at his best Joker impression.

1:25: CARA DEVELIGNE GOT A LINE! It was terrible and reminded me that when you cram a movie top to bottom with outrageous comic book villains it’s probably going to turn into a giant, gloopy, earnest mess, but she got a line!

1:30: Oop, and there goes Katana, winning the Hawkeye award for “Oh, shit, you’re in this movie too, aren’t you?”.

1:39: Fuck’s sake, is that Harley Quinn in the strip club from the last trailer again? Let me guess, part of their evil scheme will require Margot Robbie to squirm about on a stripper’s pole because there’s just NO WAY TO AVOID IT, THE PLOT REQUIRES IT TO HAPPEN, WHY AREN’T WOMEN ALLOWED TO BE MINDLESSLY OBJECTIFIED AND SIDELINED OVER AND OVER AGAIN IN THIS GENRE WITHOUT SOMEONE BITCHING ABOUT IT GOD.

1:42: What fucking tone are they actually going for with this movie? The first trailer was gratifyingly dark and edgy, and then this one has people in panda suits and what amounts to Comic Sans font announcing them the “Worst Heroes Ever.”

1:50: Thing is with Will Smith, is that he can make a shitty movie at least fun (see: Independence Day), and every shot of him in this trailer makes me believe he’s going to do it here. Whether him and Viola Davis can withstand the deluge of awful that is Jared Leto’s Joker and Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn stands to be seen, though.

2:03: MONTAGE! This all looks passable.

2:12: Oh Jesus fucking Christ, I get that DC are trying to pounce on the space left open by Marvel’s complete lack of female superhero-fronted movies, and I’m fine with that (the Wonder Woman footage released alongside this looks very decent), but is Margot Robbie really the person they’re leaning on to carry it? Because every time she opens her mouth, she gets even worse. And can someone give her a pair of trousers?

2:27: Oh yeah, Zack Snyder’s executive producing this movie. That’s why Harley Quinn can’t have clothes. Because abused women dressed all scanty and shooting guns is empowerment, right, Zack? (I’ll never forgive him for Sucker Punch).

2:31: Bleh. That looked both excellent and horrifyingly awful, with far more of the latter for my liking.

Homophobia in Football: What’s the problem?

tinietim's avatarSports History & Culture

(I would like to highlight that the following information is drawn from a football perspective within England)

 

“If a player did come out, I think everyone would be supportive, but I’m 100% sure that people in the changing room would be joking, and that some would be ripping it out of him.  If there’s a gay player in our changing room, I’d understand why he wouldn’t come out.”

(Anonymous, professional League One player)

BBC Sport reported yesterday that Premier League executive Richard Scudamore supports the idea that openly gay footballers would be treated with respect in the Premier League.

This was a bold assumption from Scudamore, who has held his position as Chief Executive at the top flight of English Association Football for 16 years. Scudamore believed openly gay footballers would be treated with “tolerance” and “that the time would be right” to come out.

The Chief Executive however…

View original post 982 more words

Homophobia in Football: What’s the problem?

tinietim's avatarSports History & Culture

(I would like to highlight that the following information is drawn from a football perspective within England)

 

“If a player did come out, I think everyone would be supportive, but I’m 100% sure that people in the changing room would be joking, and that some would be ripping it out of him.  If there’s a gay player in our changing room, I’d understand why he wouldn’t come out.”

(Anonymous, professional League One player)

BBC Sport reported yesterday that Premier League executive Richard Scudamore supports the idea that openly gay footballers would be treated with respect in the Premier League.

This was a bold assumption from Scudamore, who has held his position as Chief Executive at the top flight of English Association Football for 16 years. Scudamore believed openly gay footballers would be treated with “tolerance” and “that the time would be right” to come out.

The Chief Executive however…

View original post 982 more words

Redux: Is The Big Bang Theory Sexist?

So, last year (HOW IS IT 2016 ALREADY JESUS), I wrote an article talking about the treatment of women in the sitcom The Big Bang Theory. And, for some reason, that’s the article that people talk to me about most- I guess because the show’s so popular, and people are keen to defend their weekly dose of warm, fuzzy sitcom goodness. And one of the things I hear quite a bit is that the show laughs at the guys on the basis of their gender as much as it laughs at the women, ergo it can’t be as bad as all that. Well, since you mention it…

ovp_blog_bigbangtheorycast

The Big Bang Theory, as you probably know, revolves around a group of four scientists who spend most of their free time engaging in geeky pursuits- attending comic-cons, playing board games, reading comics. They’re not especially successful with the ladies, they’re not particularly physically  fit, they’re often emotional and needy. Basically, they don’t fit the dictionary definition of masculinity- and the show openly mocks them for it.

20

I remember when The Big Bang Theory first became really popular- when the stars were on the front covers of magazines that declared smart the new sexy. And it always took me by surprise, because the show seems to show open disdain for the geeks at it’s core, specifically for their geekiness; their inability to fulfil traditionally masculine traits is often the source of much of the humour on the show. Take the episode The Fish Guts Displacement (which this article explores in greater depth) , where Howard has to be taught how to fish in order to spend time with his father-in-law; Howard (and the rest of the group by extension) is shown to be incapable, squeamish, and a little bit pathetic, contrasting with the depiction of his father-in-law- the strong, stoic, silent type who apparently represents the epitome of masculinity, at least in contrast to Howard and his friends. The show openly draws a line between the “real” men of the show and the leading foursome, and takes much of it’s humour from their inability to live up to those standards of masculinity.

the_big_bang_theory_funniest_tv_show_2012

And speaking of standards of masculinity, there’s a lot to be said for how much the show hinges the normality of these characters on their sex lives. Up until very recently, breakout character Sheldon Cooper showed no interest in any kind of sexual activity with his girlfriend Amy, leading her to trick him into a variety of intimate situations with her (which, ugh). His lack of sexual desire is framed as something hilariously freakish, because what kind of guy doesn’t want to fuck his girlfriend at any given opportunity, right? By extension, the rest of the male characters are similarly portrayed as less than masculine by the show due to their lack of success with women- Raj’s chronic anxiety, Howard’s horrendous creeping, and Leonard’s bumbling insecurity have all been played for laughs, especially when contrasted with the apparently more masculine traits of their eventual partners (like having had more sex partners, more confidence with the opposite sex, etc). The show regularly casts aspersions on their sexuality, a gag so apparently brilliant that it became a running joke because HAHA GAYS, I guess.

The Junior Professor Solution

It’s interesting to note that Stuart, a side character who owns a comic book shop frequented by the leading men, was originally introduced as intelligent, charming, and successful, despite-or, indeed, because of- his involvement with geeky culture. Within a few appearances, he had been reduced down to a caricature of a lonely guy whose staggering incompetence with women is a big part of his comic value.

the-big-bang-theory-02

The Big Bang Theory, basically, is a show which draws it’s humour from the subversion of traditional gender roles. Which could be a great idea, if they didn’t frame the men who subvert these roles as often creepy, socially incompetent, and childlike (remember, Howard still lives with his mother for most of the series’ run, and all four characters are shown to have often dependent relationships on their mothers). The show is taking steps in the right direction by revolving around men who don’t live up to the traditional standards of masculinity, but it could be doing even more by not laughing at them for it.

 

.

Sherlock: The Abominable Bride Review

I’ve never really written about Sherlock on this blog before, which is kind of odd when you consider the fact that it’s a) a proper pop-cultural pantheon that has earned it’s place amongst the most critically revered and passionately fandomed shows of the decade and b) co-created by the man behind one of my favourite shows of all time, Steven Moffat. Truth be told, Sherlock has never really interested me on the same rabid level that other shows have-I appreciate it as a bit of clever fun (and the Hound of the Baskervilles adaptation is something extremely special) but it generally leaves me a little bit cold for reasons I can’t quite put my finger on. Maybe it’s the ostentatious style, maybe it’s the general air of smugness that wafts off it in waves, maybe it’s the fact that it has made Benedict Cumberbatch an inescapable presence even to those who are pretty ambivalent towards him (guilty as charged). But I get it; it’s slick, clever, and mind-bending, with a few great performances sprinkled in there to boot. If you love it, more power to you, even if I can’t quite get on board with that bandwagon myself.

sherlock

Nonetheless, I finally caught up on the 2013 series a few weeks ago, and it made sense to tune in to the period-piece festive special The Abominable Bride because-well, because it seemed like a rollicking bunch of historical festive fun, which is something I can never in good conscience turn down. And hey, Steven Moffat pulled off one decent Christmas special– why not another?

And hey, the show did entertain me- quite a bit, in fact- for the first hour or so. Dumping us back in Victorian England as a period-appropriate Sherlock and Watson try to figure out how a woman who apparently shot herself in the head has returned to commit a series of bloody murders, the show had a lot of fun recalibrating it’s modern-day cast to the 19th-century setting. The story had a good ghostly edge that fit well with the Christmas broadcast (look, ghost stories and Christmas just make sense to me, alright?), and it even manage to cart out Blackadder stalwart Tim McInnery for a guest spot. This was good! I liked this! Thumbs up and a round on me for everyone involved.

sherlock-the-abominable-bride-emelia-ricoletti

But then the story took a…turn. We jumped back to the present day, and the show quickly revealed that everything in the preceding hour had been happening inside Sherlock’s head as he tried to figure out how Moriarty had returned. And, in the final half-hour of the show, Sherlock disappeared firmly up it’s own mind palace.

Look, I get that a lot of the appeal of this show is that it’s fiendishly clever, dancing between reality and the inside of Sherlock’s head even in the straightest of episodes. But here, every scene seemed to run into the next one like so much wet paint; we were in the modern day, where Sherlock was certain that if he could solve the case of the ghostly killer he could figure out what happened to Moriarty, but no! That was him tripping on drugs! And now we’re acting out the last scene of the Reichenbach Falls- not the show’s adaptation of it, you see, but the original Conan Doyle story! And now we’re back in Victorian London solving the original mystery! Andrew Scott’s in a dress! Back to modern day! DO YOU SEE HOW CLEVER THEY’RE BEING? DO YOU SEE IT? DO YOU?! The episode seemed so desperate to please hardcore fans that I swore at some points I could hear it trying to claw it’s way out from behind the screen to fellate the audience.

she_s_behind_you____sherlock_and_john_meet_the_abominable_bride_in_latest_trailer_for_new_year_special

And, before I carry on, let’s take a small moment to consider the resolution to the Victorian plot. I’ve touched on women and feminism in Sherlock before, but the events of the Abominable Bride really take the cake. The episode peppered in a few references to the women’s suffrage movement- which wasn’t exactly around then under those terms, but alright- one of which included a character announcing “VOTES FOR WOMEN” with literally no further context or apparent relevancy to the plot. And it was with this level of sledgehammer subtlety that they dealt with the rest of that story. Sherlock tracks the perpetrators of the murders down to a church, where they are revealed to be feminists fighting for women to be treated with more grace by their male counterparts. And how are they doing this, you might ask? Maybe through the letter-writing campaigns and the peaceful marches that the Suffragists employed (much later in the timeline, but hey, historical accuracy clearly isn’t an issue here)? Or through the ink-bombing of letterboxes and hunger strikes of the Suffragettes? Of COURSE not- they’ve created a murder cult that slaughters men who mistreat their partners. Also, they kick around churches wearing purple KKK hoods.

sherlock-bbc

No, really.

And then Sherlock does a speech about how one half of the population is at war with the other (even though many men supported women’s suffrage and fought alongside their female counterparts) and that this is a war that men must lose (which both puts the onus for gender equality on men instead of the women who are apparently fighting it, and frames women’s suffrage as something that removes power from men as opposed to giving it to women). Forgive me if I’m a little annoyed, but as someone who’s studied gender history for a long time now, framing the early Suffrage movement as a bunch of spurned women who commit murder every time a man displeases them fucking infuriates me. Depicting the vital early stages of Britain’s feminist movement as a man-murdering cult, while not even bothering to name-check any of the brilliant historical figures who helped define it (Mary Wollstonecraft, Mary Astell, et al) is some bullshit. I’ll admit that this did colour my attitude towards the episode in a big way, but even without it, the third act of The Abominable Bride was a fanservicey, confused mess.

1e8b7058-b131-11e5-8782-a7e1fa0485da

Basically, for me, a casual fan with no deep emotional investment in the series, this episode pretty much severed ties to the last vestiges of goodwill I had towards it. From an overly clever-clever third act that seemed to rely much more of fanservice that actually moving the plot along or telling us things we didn’t know, to a resolution to a plot that popped early feminists in KKK hoods, the whole thing felt like it was striving for something bigger and better than anything it could really achieve. Tuning back in to the series, I was hoping for either a jump forward in the Morairty plot of the previous season or simply an entertaining romp through Victorian London. What I got was an ugly mish-mash of both, an episode that seemed to give a half-hearted hand-wave to both plots without properly throwing itself into either. What resulted was a flabby, self-indulgent mess whose plot could have been summed up in a webisode,

Ah, well, at least I get another year off before I have to deal with it again.