The Sexualization of Sherlock Holmes

3The Sexualization of Sherlock Holmes

As it is mentioned earlier, many specific features of Holmes do not come from Doyle himself but from the constant evolution of the character through adaptations. Sidney Paget’s illustrations of the detective in The Strand Magazine were inspired by his brother, “making him much more dashing than the raptor-like gent of [Doyle’s] description” (Graham and Garlen 25). The first stage adaptations maintained this handsomeness. William Gillet with his career of romantic leads charmed audiences with his “clear-cut features, the deep-set eyes, looked out from under a deerstalker cap” (Riley and McAllister 65). Screen audience thought of Sherlock Holmes as a graceful man thanks to Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett, who together portrayed the character over fifty times. The evolution of Holmes as an attractive man moved forward with recent renditions making Holmes a heartthrob³⁰ material, partly as a result of casting choices. Cumberbatch, Downey Jr. and Lee Miller represent a textbook example of an appealing British gentleman and are considered heartthrobs themselves. Even though Downey Jr. is an American, he has been praised for his ability to duplicate the Britishness of the character.

However, the main reason behind the sexualization of Sherlock Holmes is the creation of a new masculine ideal. In “A Scandal in Belgravia” while Holmes is explaining his deductions on a case to Adler, she, astonished by his skills, points out “brainy is the new sexy” (00:26:47). The geek culture and the fascination with “scientific smarts and eccentric habits” transformed the idea of masculine beauty (Graham and Garlen 25). Audiences long for the mysterious, Byronic type of a hero so much that “the sexualization of the great detective has become a major element of his representation” (Graham and Garlen 30).

3.1Bromance or Romance?

The Oxford Dictionary defines bromance as “an affectionate but non-sexual relationship between two men”. The term was used for the first time in 2004 and since then it has become a popular phenomenon appearing in both small and big screen’s renditions. The relationships of Holmes in the adaptations make him more relatable in terms of emotions and therefore more attractive for audiences. The popularity of Doyle’s detective was built only on his intelligence and the cases he could solve. Today’s audiences need more than that, they need Holmes to be not only genius machine but also human being affected by emotions. The glimpses of his feelings for Watson and his determination to do the impossible for his best friend make Holmes the greatest detective in the world.

Holmes believes emotions make people weak. In “A Scandal in Belgravia”³¹ he manages to solve a mystery around Adler, who tries to outsmart him, thanks to her feelings for him and states “I’ve always assumed that love is a dangerous disadvantage. Thank you for the final proof.” (01:21:24). However, where Adler fails as a criminal, she succeeds as a human being. Same pattern applies on Holmes himself. Even though the newly-developed emotions may make him a worse detective when it comes to his focus on facts and details, it ultimately makes him a better person, and thus, more relatable character for contemporary audiences.

Watson has also become Holmes’ personal Achilles heel, and everyone, including his ultimate nemesis Moriarty, knows that the only way to hurt him is through Watson. In finale of season one³² in Sherlock, he places a bomb on Watson to make Holmes negotiate with him and the second season climaxes with Holmes choosing his own death to save Watson and his loved ones as Moriarty proclaims “Your friends will die if you don’t.” (“The Reichenbach Fall”, 01:12:54). In Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows the villain threatens to hurt the doctor and his new wife so later the viewer watches Holmes interrupt their honeymoon to try to save them. Elementary puts Watson in danger on a season-basis, however, when the danger might come from Moriarty in an episode called “Risk Management”, Holmes promises her:

Holmes: “Watson, you know that there are risks entailed in the work that we perform. You cannot do the work without undertaking those risks. But know this, as far as Moriarty is concerned, I will never allow any harm to come to you. Not ever.”

Watson: “You can’t promise that.”

Holmes: “And yet I have.” (00:27:00-00:27:19)

Moreover, Watson serves as his conscience (Lavigne 20). Before he met him, he had been solving cases purely for his enjoyment, the saved lives and nations had been only the result of his brilliance. After a start of their friendship, Holmes leads investigations not only with Watson, but also for Watson, “his dependable moral base” (Lavigne 20).

The phenomenon of bromance is similar to popular culture’s ‘buddy cop’ pattern, which is “a closely bonded platonic relationship between two men who share professional and domestic intimacy, who form two halves of the one powerhouse whole” (Lavigne 17). Holmes and Watson are dependent on each other in terms of their detective careers. Even though Holmes’ knowledge of anatomy is rather wide, he often relies on Watson and his medical education. The three adaptations show Watson as Holmes’ partner rather than his assistant. The importance of both characters in the investigations is stressed usually with Holmes using his deduction skills and Watson focusing on the human aspects of their cases.

According to Lavigne, the buddy cop pairings “must constantly struggle against their own romantic implications” (17). The Victorian understanding of two bachelors living together differs from the one of the contemporary audiences. There is a “very thin line between Victorian appropriateness and modern obsession with sexuality” (Porter 183). While today the idea of adult men in their forties sharing an apartment immediately raises a suspicion about their sexuality, the 19^th century wifeless gentlemen often formed close relationships, which originated during an education process. Male-only boarding schools offered little but male-male friendships, that often continued into adulthood. “Although Holmes and Watson are not schoolboys, … they are well-educated gentlemen who would have matured during a time when male friendships were unquestioned and acceptable” (Porter 185).

The modern-day Holmes and Watson “are caught between the representational poles of homoeroticism and homophobia” (Lavigne 16) just like any other famous buddy cop partners, for instance in Hawaii Five-0 (1968, reboot 2010), Lethal Weapon (2016) and Starsky & Hutch (1975)³³. Frequently, the buddy cop stories show girlfriends and other love interests, as well as homophobic humor to reestablish the heterosexuality of the characters (Lavigne 17). This proves true in all three adaptations. Sherlock’s creators bring up the homoerotic subtext only to disavow it later. For instance, when Mrs. Hudson is showing Watson the apartment for the first time, she questions the need for two separate rooms for him and Holmes and she is met with Watson’s vocal disapproval – “Of course we will be needing two.” („A Study in Scarlet “, 00:14:26). Same pattern appears in every episode throughout the series with Watson always defending his heterosexuality. Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes also brings up the innuendos, however, they are not immediately disproved the same way as in the BBC series. Instead, the movies make Holmes and Watson action heroes, often engaging in various fights, so that their masculinity, and thus their heterosexuality, cannot be tested. One of many examples of the homoerotic subtext in the movie is a scene with Holmes appearing in woman’s clothes at Watson’s journey to his honeymoon. They are chased by Moriarty’s people who have been ordered to kill them. Holmes saves the newlyweds and prepares for the final fight by laying on the floor:

Holmes: “Lay down with me.”

With the gender swap of Watson, Elementary avoided the homosexual subtext, however, the heterosexuality of both Holmes and Watson is emphasized by their dating history and active sexual life of Holmes, as it is mentioned earlier.

Bromance is closely connected to the term homosocial that is defined as “the seeking, enjoyment, and/or preference for the company of the same sex” (Thomas 40). Sherlock and Watson frequently choose each other’s company over the one of women, even after Watson’s moving out. The recurring scene with Holmes tempting Watson to join him in investigations always shows the doctor’s rush of excitement about being on a case again. When it comes to Sherlock Holmes and his relationships in general, he tends to connect primarily with men. Apart from Watson, he works with Lestrade, he fights with his brother Mycroft and he competes with Moriarty (Lavigne 18).

In fact, his rivalry with Moriarty often resembles flirtation, that represents a “carefully blurred, always-already-crossed line from being ‘interested in men’ and pursuing the interests of men” (Thomas 40). Although Sherlock’s Moffat and Gattis insist on the heterosexuality of their characters, in fact they agreed “Holmes’ asexuality [is] overtly established within the narratives” (Lavigne 15), they build many scenes on the homoerotic humor. And not only concerning the main duo, but also in the interaction between the consulting detective and “the consulting criminal” (“The Great Game”, 01:23:13). In “The Great Game”, the episode climaxes with Moriarty’s and Holmes’ first face-to-face meeting that is built on innuendos between the two:

Moriarty: “Is that a British army Browning L9A1 in your pocket or are you just pleased to see me?

Holmes: “Both.” (01:21:59 – 01:22:08).

Furthermore, “new audiences may become fans of Holmes and Watson not because of the way in which Arthur Conan Doyle originally wrote the characters, but because of the recent adaptations’ sexual subtext in scenes like this” (Porter 184). Therefore, it is clear the renditions create the homoerotic tension on purpose to attract more viewers. However, Sherlock Holmes has become a pop culture phenomenon of the 21^st century and thus he must “deal with 21^st century sexual politics as the homoeroticism inherent in its buddy bromance grows more and more explicit” (Lavigne 23).