A wealthy man who would do anything to make sure a “scandal” is not exposed — sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Women across time have suffered from and have faced insurmountable backlash, no matter if a “scandal” is revealed or not. Despite the many modern Sherlock Holmes adaptations, none have interpreted this situation with the respect it deserves.
Irene Adler, in “A Scandal in Bohemia,” a short story from 1891’s “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,” is a woman trying to protect herself. In the story, the King of Bohemia is about to marry, but he fears his past romantic relationship with Irene will become public and damage his reputation. Irene possesses a photograph of the two of them together, and the King hires Sherlock Holmes to recover it. Irene has no intention of using the photograph to blackmail him. She keeps it as protection, fearing what the powerful King might do.
It’s a classic story where Irene ultimately outsmarts Sherlock and escapes to live the life she wants to lead. Modern interpretations fail to show this.
In “Sherlock Holmes” (2009), starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, Irene has history. Sherlock is immediately distrusting because of their prior romantic history. In this iteration, she works for Moriarty, Sherlock’s arch-nemesis, so Sherlock feels the need to “protect” Irene from trouble. For the rest of the movie, she is solely connected to Sherlock’s character growth and is used as a damsel in distress. At the end of the movie, she implies Sherlock is her weak spot, and in the second movie, “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” (2011), she is quickly killed off.
The 2009 film took many liberties with Irene. She is known for her intelligence; after all, she is one of the few characters able to outsmart Sherlock. She takes an active role in her original story to ensure her own protection. This adaptation makes her completely reliant on Sherlock, and she is reduced to a helpless love interest.
Unfortunately, the other adaptations are no better.
CBS’s TV show, “Elementary” (2012), combined the characters of Irene Adler and James Moriarty into Jamie Moriarty. Jamie, under the alias Irene, dissuades Sherlock’s attempt to investigate her by having sex with him and picking at his brain. Jamie then fakes her own death, lies low for a year, and returns as Irene. When Sherlock realizes he’s been deceived, he screams at her. Sherlock trusted her and fell in love because he saw her as the one person who could understand him.
There is no hint of cruelty in the original depiction of Irene Adler at all. She does not deceive Sherlock, she does not harm him in any way; she leaves Britain entirely. “Elementary” Irene’s deception of Sherlock does not allow her to be intelligent. It makes her brutal and ruthless when it comes to the emotional torment of Sherlock.
What was the point of combining the characters? Making Irene and Moriarty the same person is a unique reveal, however, this again ties Irene’s character to Sherlock. The betrayal makes sense for Moriarty, but making Irene the villain undermines the point of her character.
In the original story, Irene humbles Sherlock by keeping his ego in check because he is misogynistic in the original story. He does not believe women can be anything more than a motive until Irene comes along. “Elementary” acknowledges the original story, but when Irene is genuinely evil, it makes Sherlock seem righteous for eventually defeating her.
In the original story, Sherlock is not in the right, and that’s the point. Irene is not supposed to uplift Sherlock’s character image; she’s supposed to reveal his biases, and he’s supposed to learn from her.
BBC’s “Sherlock” (2010) is somehow the most similar to the original story. However, the show absolutely loses the sauce by making Irene a dominatrix who, despite being a lesbian, is in love with Sherlock. At first, it seems like she has full agency over her actions, but it is revealed that a terrorist organization is threatening her. Sherlock outsmarts her, then saves her from the terrorists. This twist is out of place and is, frankly, racist. (Why do the terrorists have to be Muslim Pakistanis?)
Irene Adler was not Sherlock’s love interest in the original story. Her secondary motivation for leaving Britain is so she could have a happy life with her new husband, who she is loyal to! Irene does not hint that she has romantic feelings for Sherlock. Sherlock’s actions can be interpreted differently, but, at most, it is a one-sided attraction.
I don’t understand how a story about a woman protecting herself from a powerful man seeking to destroy the evidence of his misconduct becomes this. There are many powerful men that can be projected onto a story like this. I hope future Sherlock adaptations realize this potential.
All of these modern adaptations take away Irene’s agency completely. Every iteration strips her of all her core traits. There is one new Sherlock Holmes adaptation slated for an October release, and there are two in production, all with no mention of Irene. Will her original story be forgotten?
